Hi Mark, Just as an addendum to your insight about the nature of science I offer the following quote from A. N. Whitehead, one of Pirsig's mentors. In speaking of science he wrote:
"We must note its outstanding efficiency as a systems of concepts for the organization of scientific research. In this respect, it is fully worthy of the genius of century which produced it. It has held its own as the guiding principle of scientific studies ever since. It is still reigning. Every university in the world organizes itself in accordance with it. No alternative system of organizing the pursuit of scientific truth has been suggested. It is not only reigning, it is without rival. And yet -- it is quite unbelievable." Regards, Platt On 29 Oct 2010 at 9:58, 118 wrote: Hi dmb, I have provided some clarification of my position in response to your post below: dmb says: Exactly. Thanks Arlo. Ian (and the theists among us) sees this move as "balance" but according to the MOQ this move is immoral. This is the thing that kills me. In the MOQ we already have a brilliant critique of the limits of science and the limits of intellect. We already have a strong defense against scientism and reductionism and a strong rejection of the narrow empiricism that leads to both of those things. And the MOQ criticizes and corrects this problem WITHOUT undermining science or intellect. In fact, the solution is to bring art, science and religion together by making them all subservient to Quality, to the primary empirical reality. To a radical empiricist, they're all supposed to be based in empirical reality and faith becomes a very low quality basis of belief, regardless of what domain we're talking about. Empirical reality. That's what makes science work in the first place. And that's what's wrong with faith-based beliefs in the first place. They're not based on experience. They're not open to change or criticism. Ever noticed that Sanskrit and Latin are dead languages? [Mark] My opinion is that science is a faith, it has to be. Most of what we read in books is not something that we have experienced, yet we accept it. At the cutting edge of science one notes that it is as messy as metaphysics. Ideas are formulated and rejected constantly. When there is agreement on a certain premise, that only lasts until the next change. The scientific method is indeed useful, the scientism it professes is not. If you are stating that faith is not based on experience, then you are missing a whole side of life which is open to many. This is not at the expense of rational science, but in support of alternative experiences which have Value and can coexist. What is denoted as Empirical reality is dealing only with the objective side of things. As man has demonstrated, there is an equally valuable subjective side. Of course religions are open to change and criticism, just look at the history of Catholicism itself. Neither Sanskrit or latin are dead, they have changed, as is appropriate. Again, a one sided view of experience does not fit the facts of living. It is turning a blind eye to what man is seeking. It can be considered destructive, and I question the ends that it is trying to achieve. If unity of man under an objective and perhaps cold world is the intention, then it is self defeating because it is against man's nature as expressed over the millennia. Such notions will never survive for long. A lasting metaphysics cannot be so one-sided. Many now object to the seeming fantasy of the subjective. Indeed, Descartes converted the subjective to the objective by stating that it was mere thought. MOQ is an attempt to rectify this, in my opinion, and harmonize the subject and object. The lack of any meaningful subjective has resulted in either consistent distractions with gadgets to avoid contemplating a seemingly endless state of nothingness which is to come, or reactionary religions or social movements which are put in place to counter the objective view. There is indeed meaning here, such meaning lies within and without the empirical reality which is created by the mind. Faith is needed for both, whether you like it or not. Cheers, Mark 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
