Jon,
Hi. I saw your post on the MD and thought I'd respond because I disagree with you and
Pirsig and probably many others in the forum on many points.
<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."
That's because people are basically irrational by nature. Being rational does not come
naturally and most people aren't up to it. It's too hard.
<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.
The scientific method is just a general procedure for how to go about performing
science objectively. Enforcing objectivity is not a burden on the method, as you say,
but a burden on peers who review that the method is followed. If you are using
"artificial" here in a pejorative sense I don't see why. Plenty of artificial things
have high value.
<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.
I haven't read ZMM in a long while. Could you point out to me where he states his
problems with the scientific method? I'd be interested in reviewing those. My
recollection was he was impressed with the way the scientific method made room for
provisional truths, which is ultimately responsible for scientific and technical
progress (of which we've
had plenty).
<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."
Treating the world as morally vacuous is perfectly alright so long as people aren't
concerned. The study of electrons, silicon, volcanoes, and a myriad of other things
that fall under the parlance of science do not enter into the moral sphere. We don't
even judge the morality of a lion hunting down a baby gazelle.
Scientists *can* infer the purpose of some things. For living things, a purpose is to
survive long enough to reproduce.
<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)?
A niggly thing, but shallow people can't have something deep down. It's a
contradiction. Frankly, I think shallow peoples' morals are hardly influenced by
science and the value they place on life (or lack thereof) is formed elsewhere.
<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. . ."
Yes I believe he does. But I disagree. I'm not even convinced about the social
deterioration. Things were not so rosy in Victorian times either. And even if we are
socially worse off now, isn't it moral for an intellectual pattern to subvert society
according to his own MOQ? It's confused, don't you think?
<From the same page: "Morals can't function normally because morals have been
<declared intellectually illegal by the SOM that dominates present social thought."
He makes it sound like scientists are getting on TV and saying they've discovered
morals don't exist, and that lawmakers agree and are trying to pass legislation to
outlaw them. If this kind of thinking dominates present social thought then why do we
still have laws, police, and courts? Me thinks he doth protest too much and it
perplexes me why anyone agrees with him on this.
<In other words, science has declared that morals aren't real, so fewer and
<fewer people have any use for them.
I don't think so. Cite a reputable scientific journal that declares this.
<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."
I only agree with your first sentence. Even Jerry Springer guests know that scientists
who study choral reefs or galaxy formation have nothing to say about morals, for the
simple reason that human beings aren't involved. But when study of atoms leads to a
bomb or when the human genome project brings up privacy issues then all kinds of moral
debate follows, by scientists and non-scientists alike. In this regard I wouldn't
characterize society as gullible.
This idea that we are "subliminally" affected by SOM is a constant theme I hear on
this website. It's this idea that there is a deep and broad conspiracy, started by the
scientists, toward a certain way of perceiving reality that has us believe substance
is real and values are not. The brain-washing begins at birth and when you are grown
you pass on the beliefs to your children and in this way there is a mass cultural
psychosis. Jon, would you at least entertain the possibility that there is no
conspiracy, and that humans' fondness for SO thinking is instead genetically
predisposed? I mean, if we perceived the world as a "seamless context" then it would
be pretty hard to catch food and our species would be long dead.
<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."
They are real. They are 'customs'. It's OK to think morals are as real as rocks and
trees, but they are not like 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."
Pirsig personally despises science because of the terrible methods it used to treat
his mental illness, and more importantly, because he thinks science completely
misunderstands insanity and will never be sympathetic to his way of understanding it.
To me, Pirsig is impotently pounding away at "amoral objectivity" here. It's a vital
piece of his overall strategy to discredit science, objectivity, and rationality
enough so he can make room to legitimize DQ as the ultimate reality, in particular the
kind of DQ that is mystical experience. IMO, discrediting science, objectivity, and
rationality is not only unjustified but it removes the footholds on the steep slope of
progress and causes one to slip down, down into all kinds of psychic garbage. While
most psychic garbage is harmless and even good fun, the idea of investing time and
energy in false ideas should be abhorrent to people in search of truth. But Pirsig
anticipates this as well and even discredits truth (in favor of good). So now you
don't have to worry whether your beliefs are true or not. He's very clever, don't you
think?
<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 scientific-method does not have some sinister, ultimate goal. You've reached a
rather amazing conclusion.
Glenn
----------
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://home.netscape.com/webmail/
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
