John said:
More troublesome is the statement "it is evil to put the higher levels in the
service of a lower one". Is it really evil for a man to engage intellectually
so that he can land a good academic position and feed his wife and kids?
Because if so, you've got some explaining to do to Qualigod, as Arlo names him.
And if not, then what do you really mean?
dmb says:
It just means that it's sleazy to be a sell-out. If you do academic or
scientific work and get paid for it there is nothing wrong with that. But if
the paycheck is given priority so that you twist your ideas around to keep from
getting fired, then you're selling out. If there are scientific findings that
tell us certain kinds of economic activity pose a danger, say the fossil fuel
business and climate change, and you hide those findings in order to protect
the financial interests that are posing that danger, then you've put cash over
truth, not to mention putting people at risk for the sake of a buck.
Pirsig uses "The Graduate" as an example of what it means to sell out.
"Plastics!", says some middle-aged square to the young graduate, played by
Dustin Hoffman. What should he do with his fancy degree in science? Should he
find a position where he can do pure research? Nah, the square tells him, he
should go into plastics because that's where the money is. It's a form of
prostitution. Might as well sell your love to the highest bidder. If one really
has to do such a thing in order to survive, then it's better than dying. But
whoring yourself sure ain't nothin' to be proud of.
In his undergraduate days Phaedrus had given very short shrift because of the
title of one of his books: THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. James was
supposed to be a scientist, but what kind of scientist would pick a title like
that? With what instrument was James going to measure these varieties of
religious experience? How would he empirically verify his data? It smelled
more like some Victorian religious propagandist trying to smuggle God into the
laboratory data. They used to try to do that to try to counteract Darwin.
Phaedrus had read early nineteenth century chemistry texts telling how the
exact combination of hydrogen and oxygen to produce water told of the wonderous
workings of the mind of God. This looked like more of the same. However, in
his rereading of James, he had so far found three things that were beginning to
dissolve his early prejudice. ..The second was a reference to James' dislike
of the dichotomy of the universe into subjects and objects. That
, of course, put him automatically on the side of Phaedrus' angels." (Lila, p.
325)
"He wanted particularly to see how much actual evidence there was for the
statement that James' whole purpose was to 'unite science and religion.' That
claim had turned him against James years ago, and he didn't like it any better
now. When you start our with an axe like that to grind, it's almost guaranteed
that you will conclude with something false. The statement seemed more like
some philosophological simplification written by someone with a weak
understanding of what philosophy is for. To put philosophy in the service of
any social organization or any dogma is immoral. It's a lower form of evolution
trying to devour a higher one." (Lila, p362)
We see exactly the same objection in the annotations, where Pirsig gets
increasingly irritated by the theological overtones and finally complains about
trying these theists trying to smuggle their goods in through the back door. I
mean, come on John. Pirsig is quite consistent and unequivocal on this point.
If Pirsig is reading this stuff, then he is watching you try to smuggle theism
into his philosophy. Do you think he'd be okay with that and somehow grant an
exception in your case?
I know you get real bent out of shape over this and tend to my complaints as
prejudiced personal attacks but look at what Pirsig is saying, man. I'm not
making this up. Pirsig's view of such things is right there in front of you.
All I can do it put it on your plate. But you've got to pick it up and chew on
it for a while. Otherwise, the busboy is going come along and take it away,
thereby throwing a perfectly good meal in the trash. And whose fault will that
be? The cook's? The waiter's? Where does your intellectual responsibility
factor into this? You came into Bob's diner, where they don't serve theism, and
ordered the dish. What did you expect to get? That's like demanding sushi at a
pizza place or demanding a rare steak at a vegan juice stand and then getting
angry when they explain why that's not possible.
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
