Hi everyone
Ian sorry if my email is screwed up, I wasn't aware of it.
GLENN:
What are the consequences of this belief of yours? Are you saying we should
stop smashing atoms in accelerators because it's immoral in some sense? You
seem to be mixing in Pirsig's ideas about morality. Even Pirsig says the
morality of molecules is a distant cousin of human morality. Let's be
practical here. You are really stretching an argument
JON:
Pirsig says the fundamental "groundstuff" of reality is Quality/Morality. I
find this to be a very practical idea. It all comes down to caring. When we
view something in an amoral light, I think it's not a stretch to say we don't
care about it as much as we'd view something in a moral way. There's so much
about the world that we don't care about because it's inorganic, like the
wrench on the cover of ZMM. That cover has a very powerful message about how
Pirsig views life. Care more about that wrench in your hand. Caring more
about the wrench will spill over into caring more about the job you are doing
with the wrench, and naturally the Quality will permeate into other, more
clearly human aspects of your life. I'm kinda tired as I write this, and it
may be a tad clumsy, but I think you get my general idea here.
GLENN:
You're being unclear or irrational here. A person cannot be both shallow and
deep unless you are mixing definitions in some way.
JON:
You're telling me you don't know anyone who is deep in certain areas, yet
shallow in others? Example abound. Like someone who is deep in science, yet
shallow when it comes to dealing with practical moral issues.
GLENN:
Well if we nuke ourselves into oblivion our disagreement will be academic but
in the meantime plenty of people are worried about that and lots of other
social ills but according to you not enough people are and before it's
because of the amorality of science and now it's because so many people live
in comfort. Let's go back to the year 1500, when science was nearly
non-existent and when far fewer people lived in comfort. By your argument the
world was more socially responsible then. Do you think so?
JON:
What I'm saying is that this level of worldwide comfort is unprecedented in
history. We've never expereinced this much far reaching technology that makes
life easier for so many. I think the technology is great, it's our amoral
attitudes toward it that leads to all the problems and bad feelings that
Pirsig discusses at length in ZMM. No things were not better in the year
1500.
So, yes to both. Amoral objectivity, which is a valuable tool of science, has
led to two things happening: One, it gives us this expanding comfort. Good.
Two, the amoral objectivity that gives us this comfort as plants the
suggestion in our heads that perhaps ALL of reality is amoral and perhaps
morality is not real. Bad. Just my opinion, of course, not speaking for
anybody else here. As to comfort zones, nobody will feel the need to fix the
declining morals because they are comfortable and therefore have no reason to
think there's anything wrong.
GLENN:
Well, the quote from Pirsig says "Morals can't function normally because
morals have been declared intellectually illegal by the SOM that dominates
present social thought." He's saying morals are illegal according to science.
This is not true. He's basing this conclusion on the false premise that
science explains all of reality or at least in the belief that most people
think this. Poppeycock. Subliminally? Doubtful. No scientist claims this and
the vast majority of people do not believe this.
JON:
Just to make one thing clear: No, science has never held a press conference
or anything like that and declared morality was not real. The fact that
science is unconcerned with morality suggests that morality isn't important
enough for science to be concerned with. So when I say science "has declared"
something, I don't mean that literally (nor does Pirsig, I'd venture), such
as there are no morals in objective reality, but it meshes with the current
views of science, whether declared or not.
No, science has never claimed that it has explained all of reality, but very
many scientists do in fact think that all of reality is explainable or
knowable eventually. But the fact remains that we take a great many things
for granted about the nature of reality in everyday life, such as the force
of gravity and the earth being round. It is so well known that these things
have been "scientifically proven" that we just accept it on a subliminal
level. Small children accept on a subliminal level that gravity keeps them on
the ground. Such scientific facts have become an integral part of our current
"mythos" that we accept without much question; in other words, most of the
time, subliminally.
GLENN:
I have no trouble separating morality and science. Do you? I suspect you
don't either. Who does?
JON:
I certainly don't have a problem separating the two, and I doubt hardly
anyone does. That's my point. The separation is the problem. Do I know how to
fix it? No.
GLENN:
You're missing the point. You said "science has declared". You're either
being sloppy with words, histrionic, or you're confusing what science is
about and what science claims. Would you say there's a problem with the field
of ethics if it doesn't address black holes?
JON:
Sorry if I'm being sloppy. When I say science has declared, I mean
figuratively, not literally.
GLENN:
What I meant to say was that even Jerry Springer guests don't have an
*expectation* that science concern itself with morals because much of science
doesn't deal with the human realm. People just aren't troubled by it. You're
connecting dots that aren't on the same piece of paper.
JON:
Right, the Springer guests, nor anyone else, has any expectation that science
deals with morals. It's so engrained in the heads of everyone how
fundamentally artificial and inhuman science is. Not that all artificial or
inhuman things are bad, such as the wrench on the cover of ZMM. It's our
attitudes toward the artificial things that matter.
The modern mind has been affected by the sci-method, because the modern mind
is a product of a world largely shaped by science and filled with technology
created by science. The method of thought that has produced all this
technology will inevitably have some imprint on our minds. Amoral objectivity
is one such imprint. When one looks at morality with this objectivity, our
mind formulates the rational conclusion that morality is a temporary human
invention. If we decide its not real, it becomes easier to not take it as
seriously. Hence the ease of Jerry Spinger guests when it comes to throwing
morality to the wind.
GLENN:
Well, Pirsig pays lip service to science, but he undermines it at every
opportunity. I'd say he respects it, but in the kind of way you respect a
powerful adversary. People on this website do the same thing. Read your swipe
about "so-called scientific evidence".
JON:
I don't think he feels that way about science. He is trying to get us to
reevaluate our attitudes about science, not undermine science itself.
Sometimes I don't sound totally respectful of science, but the truth is I do
respect it. And it's the method of thought that science employs,
Subject-Object-thinking, that is causing the real problems, not science.
GLENN:
Pirsig talks about quality entering science because how else do you evaluate
how good a theory is? The scientific method is actually a quality idea. So
science *does* keep quality in mind.
JON:
I think the point Pirsig is trying to make here is that even science uses
phrases like "good" and "quality" yet at the same time science refuses to
admit that Quality/Morality actually exists. So science is acting somewhat
schizophrenically when it says that there is such a thing as a good theory
but there is not such a thing as Goodness itself.
GLENN:
But I really, really, don't believe the long-range goal of the scientific
community is to "get rid of morality and emotions". I think you've seen too
many sci-fi pictures, none of which portray scientists in a very nice light,
almost like they're inhuman. Hollywood perpetuates this stereotype and it's
very disturbing. Try watching more science shows on TV like Nova
and Scientific American Frontiers and watch how science is done and hear
scientists interviewed at work and you'll start seeing a different picture
emerge.
JON:
I don't think it's a current goal, but I really don't think you can't
envision a distant future where science makes the logical step up by deciding
we don't need humanity anymore. Many scientists I've talked to will make no
bones about that fact that ONE day, we won't be needed anymore, and that it
would be foolish and irrational to insist on preserving humanity just because
we feel sentimental about it.
But I don't think there's any conspiracy. That's just a possible future, pure
speculation. The here and now is more important.
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
