[Mark]
I appears to me that such an interpretation is a bit extreme and
perhaps reactionary.
[Arlo]
I don't think so. As Andre pointed out, the entire piece is a merely
a diatribe against "science", with nothing offered in terms of
solution but a gentle nod back to the domain of theism.
As I mentioned before, this is in-line with the historical rhetoric
that has emerged from the apologist camp. In the 60's and 70's the
rhetoric was to elevate "religion" to the level of "science". Theist
archeologists, for example, sought to "prove" their book by finding
the remains of Noah's Ark. In the 80's, with this endeavor failing,
the rhetoric switched from elevating "religion" to lowering
"science". With efforts to raise religion to the domain of science
ending in failure, the new effort was to make "science" just another
"religion".
What is interesting, is another subtle shift in the rhetoric since
the 90's, with the effort to lower "science" mostly failing, the
rhetoric has adopted the nightmare demagoguery (to borrow Andre's
observation) of political ideology. Thus it is becoming not enough to
"lower" science to the level of "religion" but to demonize the entire
edifice of "science" to make it "evil".
This is high-lighted in the following passage from the Biblical
"gotanswers.org".
"Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6000
years or billions of years, both viewpoints (and everything in
between) rest on faith and assumptions...." Here you see the lowering
of science to just another religious belief. But, in a few sentences
we see this rhetoric appear. "Whatever the case, there is always good
reason to trust the Word of God over the words of atheistic
scientists with an evolutionary agenda."
Those damned "atheistic scientists" and their evil "agenda".
This is the place in the rhetoric where Angell appears, not content
to make "science" just another "faith-based theism", he openly mocks
and ridicules "science" as openly dangerous and in need of the
tempering hand of "religion" to guide it lest it lead to villainy and
evil. "Scientists" are a "smug" lot, intent of "disgracing"
Christianity (since Angell neither mentions nor cites nor draws any
reference to "religion" apart from "Christianity", it appears the two
must be synonyms for him).
As Pirsig would note, this is a move to subjugate a higher level by a
lower level. It is immoral.
[Mark]
In this way, questioning science as it is taught to us in school, as
the purveyor of truth, is indeed healthy and should be encouraged.
[Arlo]
I think it has, historically, been science that recognized that what
it provided was a provisional "truth" as its understanding grew.
Theism, on the other hand, has proclaimed to offer the Truth, an
absolute that did not grow or evolve with experience. But ultimately
here, I think the answers provided by theology (as a branch of
philosophy) and GOF SOM science are to different questions.
But this is the point Pirsig tried to address, tried to "unify" or
expand our understanding of rationality (or inquiry). This is why, to
Pirsig, building a rotisserie was not just "scientific", but also
spiritual and/or aesthetic. The entirety of ZMM was a historical
retracing of "rationality" (science) back to the roots where it was
cleaved from its "romantic" Yang.
[Mark]
The point is to not look to extend an existing philosophy, as is,
towards betterment, but to allow drift and incorporation to allow the leap.
[Arlo]
If there emerges another level above the intellectual level, it will
likely be one we will never see nor experience, in the same way a
red-blood cell does not experience the body or the city of New York.
Pirsig's MOQ certainly was an attempt to expand rationality. While he
(correctly) observed that "Our current modes of rationality are not
moving society forward into a better world." (ZMM), he also cautions,
"So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the solution to the
problem isn't that you abandon rationality but that you expand the
nature of rationality so that it's capable of coming up with a solution." (ZMM)
The MOQ is the result of such an expansion. "He felt that the
solution started with a new philosophy, or he saw it as even broader
than that...a new spiritual rationality." (ZMM)
In sum, I think Angell is simply beating the dead horse of GOF SOM
science, or what Pirsig called decades ago "classical rationality".
Instead of pandering to theism, though, Pirsig envisioned a way forward.
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
