-----Platt, Friday, July 13, 2007 17:38----- In a science classroom do you think it's proper to raise the question Pirsig asked, "Why survive?" -----
Sure. -----Platt, Friday, July 13, 2007 17:38----- In a science classroom do you think it's proper to point out that many scientists are religious and initiate a discussion around the following quote from Paul Davies, a physicist? "I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact." ------ I wouldn't intervene to prevent an open-ended discussion on such a question. However, I would begin to "smell a rat" and ask, "What the purpose of the discussion?" It sounds to me like an attempt at religious proselytization. I think Pirsig would have the same reaction to such a discussion as he did to the introduction of Spirit in this discourse on 19th Century Idealism: <http://robertpirsig.org/Copleston.htm> -----Platt, Friday, July 13, 2007 17:38----- Pirsig has a value-centered explanation of evolution. Should it be taught in a science class? ----- No. It should be taught in a philosophy class. As Pirsig himself states in Lila, the MoQ doesn't make a difference in the laboratory. It shouldn't be taught *as* science, it should be taught as an expansion of science, a set of meta-level considerations. It is, after all, a *meta*physics, not a physics. -----Platt, Friday, July 13, 2007 17:38----- My appeal is more to what's necessary to maintain a viable society than an appeal to tradition, although there is reason for the tradition. But I agree this is a matter of state law and would not raise an objection to your voting to legalize gay marriage in your state if that's what you want. I would vote otherwise in mine. I don't think the issue rises to the national level as some social conservatives believe. But, if you were to ask if I though English should be the official national language, I would say "Yes." ----- Well, for whatever we agree on, we will continue to part ways here. I haven't heard a response to my question, "What effect on long-term social viability would allowing that legal recognition have?" I just don't see the threat to viability in recognizing same-sex unions. So far as I can see, such recognition would not prevent heterosexuals from continuing to procreate, families from continuing to exist, nor children from continuing to be raised & enculturated. In terms of your offered stance on a national language, while I think that there are great advantages to social cohesion, economic efficiency, and intellectual exchange in sharing a common language, I think to legislate on its behalf amounts to more heavy-handed government intervention too often motivated by fear and prejudice. -----Platt, Friday, July 13, 2007 17:38----- The question is: What is the basis for making a moral judgment that equality is more desirable than variety, or that a classless society is preferable to a meritocracy? Pirsig's claim is that subject-object intellect has no basis for making moral judgements. In fact, he says, to subject-object intellect, moral judgments don't exist because they can't be detected scientifically. What is fair? What is just? Science hasn't a clue. Marx and his friends where simply making personal judgments about right and wrong. Is that what morality comes down to, personal whim? The MOQ attempts to put moral questions on a rational, if not scientific, basis. Specifically regarding the morality of socialism, Pirsig said, "But what the socialists left out and what has all but killed their whole undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality." (Lila, 17) ----- OK, I think I understand your reference now. Communism and socialism fail because as centrally planned economies, they cannot account for Dynamic quality. They are too static in their design & cannot keep up with a reality changing more rapidly than their conceptions of it in the way that a market economy can. Market economies can also fail when they suffer from the same defect of central control--when they are dominated by monopolies or cartels that must be broken up by government to ensure the dynamism of the market. Market economies also fail when they do not value externalities into the pricing of their goods, as with any Tragedy of the Commons scenario. -----Platt, Friday, July 13, 2007 17:38---- What this all boils down to is, "How does intellect determine the Good?" Good question. :-) And while we're at it, we might ask, "How does intellect determine the Beautiful?" ----- I don't believe that intellect does either. Good is a noun. In Pirsig's framework, Intellect may discern the Good and describe the Beautiful, but it doesn't determine either... -----Platt, Friday, July 13, 2007 17:38----- And I much appreciate the civility in our conversation. ----- Indeed. I find ad hominem attacks counterproductive on both the Social (manners & civility promoting social cohesion) and Intellectual (logical fallacy) levels and seek to avoid them even in cases of significant disagreement. I think that the Good is served only when an attitude of care is brought into a dialog, care for the truth and the standards by which it evaluated, as well as care for the person with whom the dialog is enacted. Thanks for participating in the same spirit with someone with whom you sometimes disagree... 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/
