Hi Glenn
GLENN:
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.
JON:
Agree.
GLENN:
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.
JON:
Agree.
GLENN:
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)
JON:
Pirsig talks about his problems with the sci-method on pages 114-118 (25th
anniversary paperback) of ZMM. It actually led to his expulsion from college.
He was baffled as to why no one seemed to question the validity of the
sci-method.
GLENN:
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.
JON:
I don't think it's a good idea to treat the world as morally vacuous as long
as people aren't concerned. I discussed this with Ian a few weeks ago. I
believe morality is a fundamental part of reality, such as gravity, but just
because we don't understand it is no reason to dismiss it. Particles,
molecules, lions and baby gazelles are all subject to the forces of gravity.
Likewise, they are all subject to the forces of morality.
That's just my opinion, of course. I would venture a guess that most posters
don't agree with me on this issue, so I don't want to give the impression
that I'm talking for anybody else.
GLENN:
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.
JON:
I think most everyone has the capacity for deepness. Being shallow in certain
areas is a choice. I do think that the way morals and morality is viewed by
*everyone* has been influenced by science.
GLENN:
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?
JON:
I think it keeps deteriorating because people are not concerned. But I don't
blame people for not being concerned, because it's often hard to apprehend
that anything is wrong, especially when so many people are in comfort zones.
And yes strictly speaking it is more moral for an intellectual pattern to
subvert a social pattern. But NOT if that pattern leads to the destruction of
BOTH patterns! That's a murder-suicide.
GLENN:
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.
JON:
No, I don't think Pirsig makes it sound that way. That's exaggerating. But I
don't think anyone can doubt that the declarations of science about the
"basic nature" of reality is what we have grown to accept in our everyday
lives, things we accept on a subliminal level (such as gravity keeps us on
the ground, the earth is round, etc).
Laws, police, and courts are on a totally different level from science. The
courts are on the social level, but even this level has been radically
influenced by science and so-called scientific evidence. Science has
permeated literally everything. Including the way we think about morality.
GLENN:
<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.
JON:
No reputable scientific journal could or would declare this because science
isn't concerned with morals. That's part of the problem.
GLENN:
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.
JON:
You hit the nail right on the head with your second sentence. It proves the
point I was trying to make. I'll say it again: Even DUMB people know science
isn't concerned with morals (Jerry Springer's guests seem dumb to me). These
same dumb people accept what science says about reality (gravity is real, the
earth is round, etc), and no where does science say that morality is real, or
that people should be concerned with it. It's just a matter of connecting the
dots.
GLENN:
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.
JON:
I assure you I don't think there is any "conspiracy" by scientists or anybody
else. And scientists themselves are not to blame. I've said that many times.
But our concept of morality has clearly been influenced by science and the
idea that objective-reality is more important than anything else.
Subject-Object thinking is a valuable tool, but morality is valuable too.
GLENN:
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.
JON:
I don't think Pirsig despises science at all, and he had problems with the
sci-method long before his mental illness (in fact it was one of the factors
that *caused* his mental illness, as I understand it). IF he despises
anything, I think it's the way SO thinking dominates present thought.
GLENN:
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.
JON:
He's pounds at it because it needs pounding on. Amoral objectivity as a tool
to be used in certain areas is fine, but IMO it's pervading our minds and
effecting the way we think about morality. He doesn't want to destroy science
or objectivity or rationality.
GLENN:
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.
JON:
He's not trying to discredit science or objectivity or rationality. He's
trying to get us to reevaluate these things, keeping Quality in mind (whereas
science does not keep Quality in mind). Morally, we're already slipping down
a steep slope, and Pirsig wants to stop us from slipping further.
GLENN:
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.
JON:
Once these people in "search of truth" find it, what are they supposed to do
with it? Truth doesn't tell you what to do with truth once you've got it.
Seems to me, that's where morality comes in.
GLENN:
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?
JON:
The problem is not with people worrying if something is true or not. The
problem is people NOT worrying if something is moral or not.
GLENN:
The scientific-method does not have some sinister, ultimate goal. You've
reached a rather amazing conclusion.
JON:
The goal is sinister only if you care about preserving humanity. Humanity as
we now know it, that is.
Scientists are very proud of the fact that science has such a good track
record of eliminating our "problems." It takes away our hunger, our sickness,
etc. Is it really that difficult to imagine some distant future where it
decides that our very bodies are a problem, and turns us into some kind of
"higher" lifeform, superior to our current one?
Of course it's easy to imagine that; it's the idea of countless sci-fi
stories. And many people think that's a perfectly logical distant (very
distant) future goal. Why keep these primitive bodies that die in so short a
time, why keep these primitive brains and these illogical emotions? I don't
think science would be acting illogically to one day rid us of our humanity,
would it?
I don't want to give the impression that I'm some kook who thinks there's
some grand conspiracy to cause all these things to happen. I don't think
that. It just seems like a logical progression from where we are now, and
before we "get rid" of our humanity we must get rid of morality and emotions.
I guess I'm a conservative in the sense that I want humanity to keep its
emotions.
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
