Krim Pirsig is not as entirely original in analysing SOM and its problems so there are other ways to see this. I don't see science as free of ontology or metaphysics, and neither do most philosophers of science.
For me, science is great, you can't ignore it, but it is one take on reality, it might be our best one, but its assumptions can and should be challenged and questioned, and there is no doubt that the form it takes to make it good at handling certain aspects of reality/experience makes it obscure those aspects it is not good at. EG there is no science without concepts and metaphor yet science has almost nothing to say about these aspects of reality/experience. David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Heads or tails? > [David M] > Science was made possible by the concepts > created by philosophy, without metaphysics/theories/language there is no > way > to organise the data into potential facts. Is SOM the only > metaphysics compatible with science, MOQ suggests otherwise. > > [Krimel] > It is true the science grew out of philosophy. At one time all human > knowledge grew out of philosophy in some sense. But typically the > separation > occurred as fields of knowledge jettison the baggage of philosophy. > > As for SOM as it is portrayed in the MoQ, I think that is largely Pirsig's > invention. > > > > moq_discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
