Hi Group
I'll just toss in some random thoughts since the group is going through
another dry spell.
First of all, I was giving some thought to Struan's old idea that, in his
words, "The MOQ depends on Subject-Object Metaphysics for its veracity." He
says that no serious philosophers take SOM seriously, and furthermore that
the subject-object division is not the cornerstone of any serious philosophy.
I'm no expert, but I think he may be right.
Pirsig may be the one to blame for all this confusion by constantly using the
term "SOM." Struan may be correct that the subject-object division is not a
major cornerstone in the world's various philosophies, but IMO that wasn't
the point Pirsig kept trying to make. Pirsig's point was that the
subject-object division is NOT a characteristic of reality--only the way
people think.
So when Pirsig talks about SOM, I don't think he's referring to any major
group of philosophies or even mainstream academic study of philosophy; he's
talking about the basic way people think. Pirsig chose to label this thinking
process as Subject-Object-Metaphysics. Perhaps there would have been less
complaining from Struan if Pirsig had just called it Subject-Object-Thinking.
But I could be mixed up.
As some of you may know, I am totally turned off by the logical-positivist
school of thought, and Objectivism in general. I once found these concepts
interesting but now they seem very cold and inhuman, and I find it troubling
that Ayn Rand has so many admirers. I can understand the initial fascination
with Rand's books and the concepts they contain; I think young fledgling
intellectuals are the most susceptible to her charms. Rand has taken the
virginity of many young philosophers (if you know what I mean), and that is a
shame. I'm glad I found ZMM before Atlas Shrugged.
Most of you know how Pirsig feels about logical-positivism, and objectivisim
in general. He says on page 61 of Lila (paperback): "The trouble is that man
isn't suited to this kind of scientific objective study."
I agree, and many scientists agree as well. But we agree for different
reasons, and it all concerns the use of the scientific method. Scientists
agree humans can't be totally objective, so they place the burden on
something artificial--the scientific method. Pirsig had many problems with
the sci-method which he wrote about in ZMM. I'm personally concerned with the
ramifications its constant application is having on society and evolution of
the human mind.
Lila page 317: "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world
is a completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point to anything.
Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything is just functions, like
machinery. . .<some snipped>. . .There is nothing morally wrong because there
are no morals, just functions."
Who here can honestly say they don't see this attitude reflected somewhat in
today's world? No morals, just functions. The scary thing is, many shallow
people seem to believe that, deep down. They really think life has no
meaning. Does anyone else see a correlation between this viewpoint and our
country's rampant immorality (the Jerry Springer Show, etc)?
Pirsig himself seems to think this. Here is a quote from Lila, page 351:
"It's this intellectual pattern of amoral "objectivity" that is to blame for
the social deterioration of America. . ."
>From the same page: "Morals can't function normally because morals have been
declared intellectually illegal by the SOM that dominates present social
thought."
In other words, science has declared that morals aren't real, so fewer and
fewer people have any use for them. Now it's true that most people don't have
any use for science either, much less the scientific method (for instance, I
doubt any guest on the Jerry Springer Show knows what the sci-method is). The
point is, the declarations of science on the nature of reality have come to
subliminally dominate the foundations of our perceptions. Even the
foundational thought of stupid people. Science doesn't value morals, so our
gullible society doesn't either. They've been trained to think what science
says is "real."
So they think morals aren't real. Pirsig, I think, considers morals to be
real. Here's a quote from Lila, page 355: "These moral bads and goods are not
just 'customs.' They are as real as rocks and trees."
Another pertinent quote, Lila page 323: "This scientific, psychiatric
isolation and futility had become a far *worse* prison of the spirit than the
old Victorian 'virtue' ever was."
What will become of us if we keep heading the way we are heading? I'm not
trying to sound overly pessimistic, but I think some people are overly
optimistic. Eventual elimination of humanity seems to be the ultimate,
perfectly logical goal of the scientific-method.
The Sophists of Ancient Greece, forever vilified by Plato, may have been on
the right track as Pirsig suggests in ZMM. As I was flipping through "A
History of Philosophy" by Frederick Copleston, the following quote made me
smile: ". . .the Sophists <some snipped> for the most part, other than
philosophical and their relativistic theories DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE BASED ON
ANY PROFOUND CONSIDERATION OF EITHER THE NATURE OF THE SUBJECT OR THAT OF THE
OBJECT." (caps mine)
That's an easy quote to miss, but as an admirer of Pirsig I homed in on it.
Jon
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
