[Tim] But, the academy, and the entire educational system, is a social structure, so you cannot expect any revolutionary change to come from the inside.
[Arlo] I think this conflates the "Church of Reason" with the "brick and mortar", but to the extent we have made the Church of Reason beholden to the social patterns that are supposed to support but not control the Church of Reason, I agree. As with all things, yes, "change" can only come from "outside". I think that part of Campbell's message about the rise and fall of civilizations. We see it in Pirsig's Brujo story as much as we see it in Campbell's retelling of the how Theseus represented the outsider (from Crete) who was the only one capable of slaying the Minotaur (the dying empire of the Greeks, aka Greek's static social structure). [Tim] The academy is continually finding a sort of dynamic equilibrium with the slowly changing society it serves. And, if you compare it with other social institutions, I think I will have to agree with dmb, I don't have the exact quote here, but, to paraphrase, the academy is probably the shining star. [Arlo] Agree. [Tim] But, the academy is no place for revolutionaries. You won't find them there. The academy is a place for tortoises (not hares). And again, socially speaking, this is probably proper and for the best. [Arlo] For the most part, I'd say this is correct. But as I said way back, I wouldn't confuse being "outside the Academy" with ipso facto being a revolutionary. There are quite a number of "nutjobs" hanging out outside those walls. Pirsig's own case is interesting. He was "outside" to the extent that he finalized much of thinking after his experiences there, but he is not a full outsider. He taught at the Montana State University, he went to graduate school at the University of Chicago and taught classes and the University of Illinois. A lot of his ideas took initial root via his friendship and activity with Dusenberry, also a professor at MSU, whose academic work brought Pirsig into contact with "the Indians". And even years after his involvement in the Academy ended, he has been actively involved in support Ant's PhD. [Tim] I don't remember the precise numbers, but it was something like - and, you all probably know that 'Science' is the creme de la creme of science journals - 3 years after publishing only 25% of the articles published in 'Science' have not been proven faulty. My point is that even amongst the best we have to offer, it is not all that great. [Arlo] I actually think this is a GOOD thing, and demonstrates science's evolving understanding. But, yes, it is a bad thing when lose sight of the provisional nature of "truth" and begin to think that whatever "Science" says is True for all ages. [Tim] Politics, and deceit, and exaggeration, and over-selling make it into the best of the academy (at least in the sciences). Perhaps this has to do with the fact that the best scientists are more beggars-for-money than researchers proper. [Arlo] Right. There is a funding/cost/money component to this that I think needs a huge rethinking. I don't have a lot of fleshed out ideas, but professors are often judged very heavily on the amount of research money they bring into their respective colleges. Getting a million-dollar grant is akin to an Oscar nomination. [Tim] The point, for me, is that if you want a better society - or any social structure there-within - you have to do the hard work of making a better society. Social structures react to compulsion. Again, perhaps this is for the best. [Arlo] Agree. I said something similar to John or Mark yesterday. A lot of these problem would "go away" when (and sadly, if) the root understanding of ZMM spreads. The problems with the Academy, the problems with in the local mechanic shops, the problems with the labor alienation and consumerism, etc etc etc. [Tim] Is it possible to have a society that does not force individuals to compromise (dynamic) Quality? [Arlo] I think your question is oxymoronic, as "society" is by definition static patterns of value. The closest analogy I can think of otherwise is a state of pure anarchy, but the freedoms we enjoy that permit intellectual activity would rapidly disappear. Some balance between static and Dynamic Quality is what moves evolution forward. [Tim] Or, is society such a constraint on dynamic (and intellectual) Quality that we will forever be nibbling at the margins? [Arlo] Social patterns certain constrain activity, but I think its important to see that it enables a lot of freedom too. For example, laws that require you to drive on a certain side of the road, and punish you with incarceration if you don't comply, force a certain constraint on our behavior, but these laws in turn enable a far greater freedom via the safe, rapid ability to travel. Thanks for joining in, Tim. 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
