Keith, > -----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.
Since science denies life has a purpose, I wonder if asking the question will raise questions you think don't belong in a science class. > -----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." ------ [Keith] > 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> Excellent reference. Indeed you would be right to "smell a rat." But, such a discussion might deter impressionable young minds from thinking that science has all the answers. On the other hand, a science teacher might not want to leave that impression . :-) Your comment reminded me of a Pirsig quote: "When subject and object are regarded as grounded in and manifesting one ultimate spiritual reality, the MOQ agrees completely except for that term, 'spiritual.'" (Copleston Paper) I think that's similar to what Paul Davies may have had in mind when he wrote (to complete the quote cited above): "There must, it seems to me, be deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level 'God' is a matter of taste and definition." > -----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. I'll have to think more about that. Offhand I think the MOQ meets the criteria of science. It's natural (as opposed to supernatural), logical, empirical and economical. And for me at least it qualifies as beautiful. One of my gripes about education in general is the categorization and separation of subject matter whereby science bears little relation to social studies bears little relation to mathematics bears little relation to history, etc., etc. There's no attempt to integrate all subjects under a "metaphysical" umbrella. But, that's a discussion for another time. > -----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." ----- [Keith] > 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. I think the effects are more subtle than that. When "marriage" comes to mean something other than socially approved union of a man and women, another moral code of society is weakened. For example, we have seen over the years a weakening of codes regarding out-of-wedlock births, prostitution and pornography, violence, drugs, profane language, discipline, upholding the law, etc., etc., all of which undermine the bonds that hold a society together. Such "static patterns" are as needed as Dynamic advances. Of course, this represents the eternal struggle between freedom and order. Exactly what balance is needed for a society to survive is one of those unanswerable questions. Like you, I go for freedom as the default position. But I keep thinking of the wasp-spider analogy in Lila 24: "The wasp plants its eggs in the spider's body and the spider lives on while the wasp larvae slowly eat it and destroy it." IMO, gay marriage is like a wasp egg in the body of society. . [Keith] > 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. I'm all for blocking "heavy-handed government intervention." Is there any other kind? :-) Still, for the sake of social cohesion, I'll stand by my stance even though some motivations by the electorate may be less than pure. > -----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) ----- [Keith] > 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. Care to expand on the last paragraph? What is the "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario? Sounds suspiciously like scare-mongering. > -----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?" ----- [Keith] > 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... Bad choice of a word, "determine." Let me rephrase the question. How does intellect discern the Good and describe the Beautiful? Platt 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/
