Hi Glenn, 3WD, Hamish, and all:
GLENN:
He says science should be subservient to social morality, and
unless you can find more examples in Lila, it is the only one he
cites that goes against the grain of the moral hierarchy between
the social and intellectual levels. This in itself is telling.
PLATT: (Gave a number of examples to show science not
subservient to society.)
GLENN:
No, I was asking for cases the other way round. Perhaps you
misread my paragraph above?
What am I misreading? You say that Pirsig says �science should
be subservient to social morality,� i.e. the intellectual pattern
science uses (SOM) should be placed below (subordinate to)
social patterns. That�s wrong, as all the quotes I cited proved.
Here�s another:
PIRSIG:
The Metaphysics of Quality says that science�s empirical rejection
of biological and social values is not only rationally correct, it is
also morally correct because the intellectual patterns of science
are of a higher evolutionary order than the old biological and
social patterns. (Lila, Chap. 29)
GLENN:
He thinks science is undermining social morals, and according to
the MOQ, you can go against the grain of the moral hierarchy in
cases where a higher level undermines a lower level. I thought we
agreed on this.
To say �science is undermining social morals� is correct. But
�undermining� and going �against the grain� is not the same as
being �subservient to.� Here�s how Pirsig puts it:
PIRSIG:
Now, it should be stated at this point that the Metaphysics of
Quality supports this dominance of intellect over society. It says
intellect is a higher level of evolution than society; therefore, it is a
more moral level than society. It is better for an idea to destroy a
society than it is for a society to destroy an idea. But having said
this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on to say that science, the
intellectual pattern that has been appointed to take over society,
has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-object science has no
provision for morals. Subject-object science is only concerned
with facts. Morals have no objective reality. You can look through a
microscope or telescope or oscilloscope for the rest of your life
and you will never find a single moral. There aren't any there. They
are all in your head. They exist only in your imagination. (Lila,
Chap. 22)
You seem to believe that Pirsig hates science and that the MOQ is
a thinly disguised screed against science and scientists. I think
that�s a complete misreading of �Lila.� He praises science for
being an intellectual pattern that is open to Dynamic Quality. �It�s
science�s unique organization for the handling of the Dynamic that
gives it its superiority.� (Lila, Chap. 17) �Dynamic value is an
integral part of science. It is the cutting edge of scientific progress
itself.� (Lila, Chap. 29)
What Pirsig objects to is the use of science�s intellectual pattern in
social matters because the scientific pattern rejects morals. It
rejects morals for good reason, as Pirsig explains:
PIRSIG:
This opposition of levels of static patterns offers a good
explanation of why science in the past has rejected what it has
called "values." The "values" it has rejected are static social
prejudices and static biological emotions. When social patterns
such as religion are mixed in with the scientific method, and when
biological emotions are mixed in with the scientific method these
"values" are properly considered a source of corruption of the
scientific method. Science, it is said should be "value free," and if
these were the only kind of values the statement would be true.
However, the Metaphysics of Quality observes that these two kinds
of values are lower on the evolutionary ladder than the intellectual
pattern of science. Science rejects them to set free its own higher
intellectual pattern. The Metaphysics of Quality calls this a correct
moral judgment by science. (SODV paper)
Science rejected biological emotions and religion-based social
morals to free itself. But when value-free objectivity was applied to
society, the era of moral relativity and inability �to distinguish
between a Galileo fighting social repression from a common
criminal fighting social repression� began.
Should the scientific intellectual pattern retreat from the study of
man and restrict itself to studying rocks and jellyfish? Pirsig�s
answer is Yes and No�Yes if science is going to stick to its
assumption that reality consists solely of measurable substances
and forces, but No if science recognizes reality as patterns of
value. Here�s how Pirsig put it:
PIRSIG:
If science is a study of substances and their relationships, then
the field of cultural anthropology is a scientific absurdity. In terms
of substance there is no such thing as a culture. It has no mass,
no energy. No scientific laboratory instrument has ever been
devised that can distinguish a culture from a nonculture. But if
science is a study of stable patterns of value, then cultural
anthropology becomes a supremely scientific field. A culture can
be defined as a network of social patterns of value. As the Values
Project anthropologist Kluckhohn had said, patterns of value are
the essence of what an anthropologist studies. (Lila, Chap. 8)
GLENN:
I'm trying to develop a motive for his attacks on science, since the
attacks don't make sense to me.
In spite of all the quotes I�ve cited, I guess there�s no convincing
you that Pirsig isn�t out to destroy science. His attacks (if you want
to call them that) are aimed at the use of the scientific pattern of
amoral objectivity to study, change or organize society.
Communism and socialism are examples of social orders
dominated by the scientific intellectual pattern.
GLENN:
Getting back to Margaret Mead - Pirsig isn't really blaming her as
much as the amoral science she stands for. He thinks she came
to this conclusion (free sex is OK here, so it's OK there) because
she thought her scientific facts proved it, but how could she have
thought that? *Maybe* her facts show free sex works in Samoa,
but how can she say they work in America, a completely different
culture? If she bases her science on the precepts of cultural
relativism, she can't be making this statement with the authority of
her school of science. She must have known that she was
speaking her own beliefs here, not ones arrived at by objective
evidence. So, if she were acting like a proper amoral scientist, she
would have kept her mouth shut and kept her personal beliefs to
herself. The blame falls on her, not amoral science.
Nowhere can I find in Lila or elsewhere that Margaret Mead said
any of things you attribute to her. I haven�t read �Coming of Age in
Samoa� but I doubt if Mead said anything about free sex being OK
there so it�s OK here, nor did Pirsig say she arrived at such an
�amoral� conclusion.
GLENN:
What I'm after are specific examples of how science and
scientists are responsible for the moral decay in the 20th century.
The only one I can find is the Margaret Mead citation. Usually an
argument is based on a preponderance of specific examples
which are all in support of a general conclusion.
Reread Chapters 4 and 24. And again, keep in mind it isn�t
science and scientists who are responsible for the moral decay
but the materialist, subject-object intellectual pattern when it is
applied to societies.
GLENN:
Can you cite where scientists "claim" only material things are
real? Do scientists claim that logic, mathematics, art and music,
cultural values, pain, morals, love, patriotism, awe, jealousy, etc
are not real? Scientists don't study these things because they're
too hard to study, not because
they're unreal.
Many scientists claim only material things are real and that all that
other stuff is illusory or an �epiphenomena.� This �prevailing
wisdom� has been described by Daniel C. Dennett, director of
cognitive studies at Tufts University, in his book �Consciousness
Explained.�
DENNETT:
The idea of mind as distinct from the brain, composed not of
ordinary matter, but of some other, special kind of stuff, is
dualism, and it is deservedly in disrepute today. The prevailing
wisdom, variously expressed and argued for, is materialism: there
is only one sort of stuff, namely matter � the physical stuff of
physics, chemistry and physiology � and the mind is somehow
nothing but a physical phenomenon. According to the
materialists, we can (in principal) account for every mental
phenomenon using the same physic principles, laws, and raw
materials that suffice to explain radioactivity, continental drift,
photosynthesis, reproduction, nutrition and growth. It is one of the
main burdens of this book to explain consciousness without
every giving in to the siren song of dualism.
Now it�s up to you to cite a contradictory source. As for the things
you mentioned being �too hard� for science to study, they wouldn�t
be if they studied them as patterns of value instead of patterns of
substance.
GLENN:
You are puzzled because you think my views insist a disconnect
must exist. You are puzzled because you believe SOM, as Pirsig
defines it, accurately models the current state of beliefs, including
my own and those of scientists. I'm arguing it doesn't.
Pirisig defines SOM as the belief that �everything has to be an
extension of matter.� Can you support your argument by citing
sources that say scientists believe otherwise?
PLATT (previous post)
Perhaps you can explain what the difference is between saying all
things are forms of energy and all things are forms of Quality. How
does the data change?
GLENN:
Energy and dynamic quality are not comparable. Energy is a
quantifiable concept. It appears in equations of physical theory. It
has properties and types, as you say. Dynamic quality has none of
these. It is undefined. At the subatomic level it is not found. If my
understanding of MOQ is correct, it would say DQ is a precursor of
energy and in fact creates it. At the subatomic level DQ is faith,
simple and pure.
You misread what I said. I didn�t compare energy to dynamic
quality. I asked what�s the difference between forms of energy and
forms of Quality. In the MOQ, energy is explained as an inorganic
pattern of value, a form of Quality. You can quantify patterns at that
level, apply equations, specify properties and the rest. The data
doesn�t change in the MOQ.
I believe you�re correct in stating that DQ (dynamic quality) is the
precursor of energy and in fact created it. If you reject that as just a
matter of faith, perhaps you can explain what did create energy?
Science says energy can neither be created or destroyed, an
expression of pure faith in an eternal, infinite being which, though
called energy by scientists, might as well, by their own description,
be called God. Have you another view?
Platt
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
