Hi Arlo, Last chance for a while, so I'll do my best and be as clear as possible.
[John] > There is a certain denigration of social patterns at play here in you > designation of social as religious. Are there not people who cling to > Humanistic Atheism religiously? > > [Arlo] > > If you're going to criticize "humanistic atheism" for being a "religion", > you'll have to point out to me (1) where it is not grounded in scientific > evaluation, and (2) where it has ignored 'something better' (e.g., give me > an explanation for something "humanistic atheists" oppose that is both > rooted in science and 'better' (and in what way)). And, by the way, is this > a criticism of "humanism" or "atheism" or only atheists who are also > humanists? > > Jc: (1) Let's just call it "Humanism" because that's what I'm talking about. eplacing Theos with Homo. From a Theism that is rejected by science, we turn to human explanations for the world and the faith I'm talking about, is faith in intellect. Faith in intellect is not scientifically supported. Didn't you read Pirsig's first book? I read ZAMM in the context of analyzing a book, Arrogance of humanism<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arrogance-Humanism-Galaxy-Books/dp/0195028902>, for logic class. These ideas are Eherenfeld's not mine, except in the sense I agree and adopted them long ago. This was part of G. Sessions teaching method - you got Eherenfeld's critique of Faith in Humanism - as a thing it itself - subject it to scientific scrutiny and you see that it's not really a scientific faith. For instance, scientifically speaking, it's impossible to measure the age of the universe - except that you pretend time is uniform and absolute to human perspective. You have to put man as the center of the universe, to come up with that - it's a religious teaching - some simple catechism we give to the kiddies. Not much different from Sunday school really. But while we're on the subject, most of Eherenfeld's work was upon the empirical evidence of how predictable human reasoning applied to the actual world in which we live, has "worked out" and he makes a dismal case and even more dismal predictions. I think his book was where I first learned about global warming. Anyway, there's plenty of science to support the fallacy of using science as a guide to the future. And a very big problem, a genetic defect in faith in human reason, is that it explicitly excludes non-human nature. Since there is no more God, it's all ours and we can do what we want with it. Not Earthism. Not Environmentism. Humanism. Thus applying merely human values to a complex and interwoven environment is a very big mistake. Ask an enviornmentalist. A scientist. (2) the atheist part is that any belief system that exists solely as a reaction, is flawed. It's always fatally flawed by patterns which it rejects. Eherenfeld describes an effort of humans to do good, to be enlightened and moral and freedom-loving. He's not talking about that. What he's really talking about is SOM. A metaphysical position that feeds industry and govt powers new skulls full of the right programming to serve the system. Professor Sessions' next assignment being ZAMM, you could see where he was going here. > [John] > So I don't care if the ideas are generated by intellectual hypothesis or > religious revelation - if they are kept dogmatically after their outmoded, > then they're social rather than intellectual. > > [Arlo] > So, if I believe the moon orbits the earth, this is a "religious/social" > pattern to me (because I haven't run the experiments to test this myself)? > But the exact same pattern would be "intellectual" to the person who has > done the experiments? Calculus, physics, geometry, physiology, all these > are either social or intellectual patterns based on the way a person > 'believes' them? Are biological and inorganic patterns also dependent on > investigation? So that aforementioned small pox virus is a 'social pattern' > until I, personally, observe it and decide its a 'biological pattern'? Same > with, say, quartz and the inorganic level? > Jc: Small pox is probably a bad example cuz when you think about it, viruses evolve socially. But let me just say this about your moon - you follow the explanation that fits the evidence you have. That's what men of all tribes have done throughout time. But the "arrogance" odf humanism is that we think we've got all the final answers. Now we know what is actually objectively true through the working of our human reason, forgetting that the universe is a lot bigger than we are. From a larger perspective, it's impossible to say who is revolving around whom, really. It's all just a twirling in space. But the human perspective says the moon revolves around the Earth because we're ON the Earth. Humanism is reifiying human perspective. Arlo: > > What you are doing is revising Pirsig's levels to begin with everything > being, at root, a 'social pattern' and for the intellectual, biological, > and inorganic to be individually metered radiations out of the social > milieu. This is, I think, really aligned with Hegel's "mind" more than > Pirsig's MOQ. > > Jc: Pirsig himself said that in the final analysis, "where do you draw the line?" So it is difficult to say what is NOT social, in the end. But he significantly indicates that what he means by social is human social patterns. I have no problem with that. I do think there is a significant sociality in the mammals, that could include them in this level but the fact remains that of all the social mammals, humans take that social behavior to a new paradigm of being. But as far as "reversing" the levels, I'm certainly reversing the common conception of their bottoms-up competitive nature. Mostly what life struggles for is inorganic satisfactions - air - sun/warmth and food which ultimately comes from the sun's energy. Sure life struggles to continue its patterns, but that struggle is rooted in the need of these lower level things. And society is equally, in the end, concerned about keeping it's members biologically alive. That's why human groups banded together in the beginning and everything since is a continuation so the 3rd level constantly strives for the 2nd and finally, good ideas crave social acceptance. I don't question the levels, but I question the way they're interpreted. > [John] > Imho, the expanded intellectual level includes an art-oriented > mythos-making. > > [Arlo] > I think a Campbell-ian-esque approach to mythology is very much at home > within the intellectual level. But I'd reword the above to say that an > expanded intellectual level is aware of its art-oriented mythos-foundation. > The idea that the logos is divorced for the mythos is the problem address > in ZMM. The intellectual level doesn't make the mythos (as I think your > wording implies), it derives from the mythos. > > Jc: Agree completely. I think of the 4th level as this romantic/classic duality with the romantic as the leading edge. Artistic intuition precedes the intellectual analysis and organization of new ideas. > [John] > We still suffer under a too limiting concept of intellect. > > [Arlo] > Who here thinks otherwise? Most days, I am optimistic that we are making > progress, but then I turn on the news or television and am convinced we are > no better today than when Pirsig first penned ZMM. > > Jc: I've had some encouragement from conversation with Randy Auxier who is staying here with me this week and we've been talking about Pirsig and he thinks Pirsig's ideas have had wide impact on the Academy but the wheels grind exceedingly slow in that world. And then it percolates down. If there is any civilization left in a hundred years. > [John] > My point up there Arlo, is that in it's context, social patterns are just > as important as any other. > > [Arlo] > Sure, as you say we are social beings. It is (as Tomasello argued) in our > first act of social awareness that we 'became' human. I don't think Pirsig, > or any one here, is anti-'social level'. What's being argued is that social > patterns should not dominate intellectual patterns. > > JC: I agree but I'd even take it one step further - there is a moral obligation to criticize, correct and create social patterns. I don't think this means intellectual control or domination tho - it's more like guidance and support. Too often it seems that the MoQ focuses upon the aspect of resisting social controls without doing anything constructive or coming up with creative social patterns. I admit such a thing is a huge task, but at least we ought to give it that old collegial try. > [John] > I was trying to rectify the low regard that attaches to social patterns > when they are equated with Religion, by a bunch of atheists. > > [Arlo] > "Religion" is at the locus of a lot of this because "religion" has been a > (the) main social pattern that has (is) attempted to dominate intellectual > patterns. I doubt many people find, say, "the union of basketweavers" to > ever have been a threat to intellectual patterns. I imagine if most people > practiced their religion without the need to coerce social law to ignore > intellectual patterns in deference to 'their' god, their would be little > conflict. > > Jc: True. Religionists have brought a lot of their troubles down on their own heads but intellect has to bear some of the blame. I follow Pirsig's lead in saying that the kinds of intellectual patterns we inherited are a big part of the problem but the solution must come from better thinking and not merely reactionary thinking. > [John] > For instance, aren't academic standards themselves a form of social > patterning? > > [Arlo] > I read this as two questions, John. "Academic standards" as those that are > imposed by the government onto public (and higher) education. And "academic > standards" as implemented within the Academy to preserve intellectual > progress. > Jc: I guess I was thinking of it more in the sense of this "we" that is created by those who attain to the highest academic positions in the land. And then they endlessly bicker with each other - which is a competitive social sport known as "my idea is bigger than your idea" But I get your point that tenure eases, at least, the merely social pressures. Arlo: We live in an era of unrelenting commodity fetishism, one that has extended > its reach to include nearly all facets of education. The "academic > standards" hoisted on the Academy by capistocrats seeking to coopt > education to strictly vocational/inductional practices is most certainly > economic, capital, social patterning. > > On the other hand, academic standards that have been adopted internal by > the academy (the continuing body of reason itself) are static intellectual > patterns that serve as supporting structure to prevent the intellectual > level from collapsing/imploding into chaos. Their appeal is to high quality > intellectual ideas, and while they may not revise as quickly as some would > like, they are open to betterness (if someone suggests a better standard, > or practice to improve intellectual quality, these standards would > improve). Citations, coherence, peer review, replicability in experiment, > prohibitions of doing harm to your participants, all these are intellectual > patterns that have evolved over the years to serve and protect as > intellectual scaffolds within the body of reason. > > > [John] > Whose reason? whose intellect? Why those of the proper social origins > of course. > > [Arlo] > Not at all. Reason and intellect are not proprietary to a "who", they are > the products of the ongoing body of reason itself. It does not matter if a > series of studies demonstrating the impact of raising/lowering/maintaining > a speed limit are produced by Harvard or your local community college. What > matters is that adhere to the demands of intellectual quality. > Jc: Well I can see arguing this aspect any further is useless. Mainly because you are right :) I will just hold to the claim that the purpose of all this intellect is, as you say, better traffic patterns - that is, a more successful, informed and just society that bumps together more gently. Beep beep, John 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
