On 22 Sep 2010 at 15:15, John Carl wrote:
[Platt]
> The scientific method calls for others in the scientific community being
> able to
> perfom the same experiements and get the same results before its brand of
> truth is accepted. But as we philosophers know only to well, not all truth
> is scientific truth, not all intellectual endeavor is scientific, and world
> views are
> as varied as there are philosophers (which is just about everybody).
>
>
John: But according to the most eminent of scientists, philosophy is dead.
How would one address this conundrum? How can they be persuaded otherwise?
[Platt]:
I would ask the eminent scientist if he values his conclusion. If he says yes,
I would say, "Then you are a philosopher." If he says no, I would say, "Then
you don't speak the truth." But, what I think he really means in saying
philosophy is dead is that religion is dead because a Creator isn't needed to
explain the universe. It arouse spontaneously from nothing. To which I would
say, "Then nothing is really something."
[Platt]
> I don't know about "all" intellectual endeavor of individuals having a goal
> of
> social acceptance. But, I agree a lot of it does. It's nice to be liked. In
> fact,
> many would rather be liked than right.
>
John:
I guess I'm trying to go a bit deeper here, than mere "wanting to be liked
and accepted". There is a sense in which all knowing is social. Our
meanings and understanding are social constructs, and thus any truth comes
down to social acceptance in the end.
[Platt]
I think the primary reason knowledge is social is because it's coded in
language which is social. But, truth is tricky. At one time the social
construct was that the earth was flat. Not true. Today, the social construct is
that values are subjective. Not true. So I don't believe in the collective
wisdom of individual ignorance.
John:
The problem, as I see it, is how one goes about this agreement. If you
shortcut it, by valuing the social agreement itself, then you go awry into
static intellectual systems. However, if you get this agreement through
intellectual quality, and the social part coming after, then that's good,
moral, right.
[Platt]
The problem I have is one man's idea intellectual quality is another man's
claptrap. Science thinks it has a monopoly on intellectual quality, but what
scientific theory tells us freedom of religion is an individual right? Here on
this site there's a lot of what might be called intellectual quality that
strives for agreement but fails, like the MOQ's intellectual level belonging
to SOM alone. Anyway I'm suspicious of establishing truth by poll. I think
social agreement often gets in the way of DQ. New ideas have a hard time
getting accepted. The brujo, for example, took a beating from his society.
History is moved forward by one man with an idea,. like Ghandi and King. But
you're right about social change ultimately needing social approval.
>> Umm... I'd say getting locked up and loads of electricity delivered to you
>> between the ears is a bit of social friction. Wouldn't you agree?
>>
>
> [Platt]
> His idea didn't come from social patterns. His punishment was. That's why I
> find society at large to be the enemy of intellect.
John: Yes but intellect finds its primary purpose, it's "values" in
overcoming social patterns. In analyzing, understanding and transcending
them. As Phaedrus learned in the hospital, you have to give them the
answers they force from you. That's an intellectual exercise, learning how
to do that, admittedly, however also admittedly it's an intellectual
exercise centered upon social values and constraints.
Intellect is "above" society, but it's also very much centered upon and
intertwined with that same society. It's aboveness comes from abstraction
and analysis. I'd say its transcending SOM by objectifying the subject! But
that's just me being glib.
[Platt]
"Objectifying the subject" strikes me as still being SOM. "Valuing the subject"
is transcending SOM. But, by being "glib" I think you're on the right track.
When Pirsig writes stuff like "Quality has Lila." he's being glib, but profound
at the same time. Maybe I'm just partial to glibness, like "Science can't
explain why it is good," "Feelings won't feed the baby," and "No one is obliged
to understand anything." Most "intellectual" prose has too much popcorn
surrounding the nugget of knowledge it offers. My motto: "Tell me quick and
tell me true, otherwise, the hell with you."
[Platt]
> As Pirsig wrote, individual rights
> such as freedom of speech represent a victory in the battle of intellectual
> vs society.
> If that's what you mean by social friction, I agree. All levels are at
> constant war
> with each other.
John: Aw Platt, why do you have to see it in such antagonistic terms?
Admittedly the levels are best dealt with discretely, but this difference
need not be "war" any more than survival of the fittest need be a zero-sum
competition for survival. The levels support and nurture more than they
"war".
imvho
[Platt]
Pirsig uses "war" and "battle" images frequently in describing the
relationships between levels. His analysis of the current sad state of affairs
rests on such conflicts. "In the battle of society against biology, the new
twentieth-century intellectuals have taken biology's side. Society can handle
biology alone by means of prisons and guns and police and the military. But
when the intellectuals in control of society take biology's side against
society then society is caught in a cross fire from which it has no
protection." (Lila, 24)
John:
> We should all take care and avoid THAT much social friction!
>>
>
> [Platt]
> For sure. And while we're at how about getting the social pattern that
> creates
> friction to individual freedom off our backs. Yes, I mean the government.
John:
Hey. I'm workin' on it Platt. A very tricky dance, in many ways.
[Platt]
Not a tricky dance to me. I just remember that every new regulation is another
chink out of individual freedom to choose. Now it's gotten so bad they are
starting to tell us what we can and cannot eat. Little by little, step by step,
freedom is eroded. Of course, it's always for our own good. Authoritarians
always know best, whether parents, professors or politicians.
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
