Quoting Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [SA previously]
> > > Where do you find this information? I
> > learned mine in the university by people who study
> science
> > > called philosophers, and they openly discuss what
> > > science is and how they say what science is, they
> > call logical positivism. Where did you learn what
> you say above?
>
> [Platt]
> > >From Pirsig who was first to identify SOM.
>
> Where does Pirsig say SOM is locked into science,
> that science can't have a different mindset, a
> different approach?
"Phaedrus thought that of the two loads of students, those who study only
subject-object science and those who study only meditative mysticism, it would
be
the mystic students who would get off the stove first." (Lila, 9)
> I'm reading how anthropology with
> a Boas logical positivist mindset left out values, and
> Pirsig states how this cultural immune system where
> the science called anthropology is weakest and can be
> changed. Pirsig goes on to discuss how some
> anthropologists have notice values need to be used to
> understand what anthropologist study. It is the
> approach these scientists can change. A different
> mindset. Pirsig says he can usurp this Boas approach
> with a different approach since Pirsig once wrote a
> book about values of for values are quality, and
> Pirsig thought, in Lila, he would be best to handle
> this change. This was the same objectivity that
> Dusenberry disliked about mainstream anthropologists.
> Lila; ch. 4 and 5
The social sciences are hardly science in the sense of being logical
positivists like physicists, chemists and biologists.
[Platt]
> > Science rejects thought? That's a new on on me. I
> > wonder how many scientists would agree.
> I talked with an astronomy professor while I was
> at the university, and tried to talk about how culture
> can be scientific. She kept saying science can't
> support culture or thought. Science has to be
> objective. And here we find the separation between
> mind-body, body-spirit, etc... where body can't be
> anywhere connected with spirit - it's called SOM where
> subject is separated from object. Subject can't be
> bias, must be completely objective to know facts.
> Subject can't involve itself in the facts. The
> subject must be impartial, and realize that all the
> subject can do is speculate and not really know
> anything worthwhile and truthful. Thoughts taint and
> infect ones view with corrupt non-objectivity. That's
> SOM. So, notice the MOQ with its' talk of values on
> the inorganic level as well as intellectual level.
> Value is found on each level.
Nowhere have I found that SOM lacks thought.
> > > [SA previously]
> > > I thought you didn't know what I meant, and
> > here you mention polar opposites. Hmmm... Where
> does
> > the MOQ mention death vs. life?
>
> [Platt]
> > Inorganic vs. biological levels.
>
> Inorganic vs. biological levels, ok, your
> avoiding my questions. Where does the MOQ mention
> death vs. life?
"Biology beat death billions of years ago." (Lila, 21) I wonder why
it's necessary for me to do your research for you.
[Platt]
> > I know what polar opposites mean. I don't know what
> > "perspectives
> > not exclusives" means. Perhaps you can explain.
Exclusive means this here and that there. Strong
> here and weak there. A black and white world with no
> gray. That's what exclusive means.
I know what exclusive means, but I don't know how that differs from
perspectives.
A perspective can be exclusive, e.g. a black and white perspective about the
war against terrorism in Iraq.
> [Platt]
> > MOQ is opposed to the SOM mindset of science.
>
> SOM has a much longer history than just science.
> SOM thought up science. It is now found to be too
> rigid of a philosophy to explain what what many have
> been sweeping under the rug. The MOQ enhances SOM
> with a more encompassing perspective. Don't be rigid
> about science. It has been the philosophy called SOM
> that has been leading science. The MOQ can help
> science understand more of the data science has found.
Yes. Point well taken.
[SA quoted Lila]
> > > "Of course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or
> > an adjective or anything else definable..." [Lila;
> > last chapter: last paragraph]
>
> [Platt]
> > Pirsig spent the majority of an entire book
> explaining the MOQ.
> > Sometimes I wonder if you read Lila.
>
> "...ultimate Quality isn't... definable..." What
> is Quality? That can be answered staticly, but don't
> forget about dynamic quality which leaves the question
> still ultimately unanswered/undefined.
>
>
> > > [Platt]
> > Unexplainable? Didn't you read Lila? DQ, "the source
> > of all things, the moral
> > force that had motivated the brujo in Zuni." Doesn't
> > that sound like an
> > explanation to you? It does to me. At lot more than
> > "It emerged."
>
> Sure you can explain quality on the intellectual
> level - the static level. What of dynamic quality?
> DQ is the source of all things, but what is that
> source?
DQ is the source, a moral force.
> DQ, and this moral force that had motivated?
> What is this Dq? Read the menu, but can't eat the
> menu, right? All is analogue of dq, but dq can't be a
> static pattern of value - that's static quality.
DQ can't be static, but a description of it can. There's a difference between
the egg you can eat and the egg on a menu.
Have a nice day.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
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/
