On 13 May 2005 at 8:40, Sam Norton wrote: A quick response to Mark [msh] who asked "Where, in LILA, do you see Socrates re-enthroned, where does Pirsig claim that "truth stands independently of social opinion?" . These two quotes from Lila are the source:
"When the social climate changes from preposterous social restraint of all intellect to a relative abandonment of all social patterns, the result is a hurricane of social forces. That hurricane is the history of the twentieth century. There had been other comparable times, Phaedrus supposed. The day the first protozoans decided to get together to form a metazoan society. Or the day the first freak fish, or whatever-it-was, decided to leave the water. Or, within historical time, the day Socrates died to establish the independence of intellectual patterns from their social origins. Or the day Descartes decided to start with himself as an ultimate source of reality. These were days of evolutionary transformation. And like most days of transformation, no one at the time had any idea of what was being transformed." (beginning of chapter 22) msh says: Here he is talking about what Socrates (Plato) thought, in the same way he talks about Descartes. He's not claiming that the Metaphysics of Quality re-enthrones Socrates, any more than it idolizes Descartes. The ideas of Socrates and Descartes characterize past philosophical upheavals, just as do the ideas of the MOQ. In the rest of the chapter he talks about how science and society were at odds during the first half of the 20th century, another upheaval, with science coming out on top (though I would suggest this dominance is currently under serious attack from the religious and anti- intellectual right.) But the thrust of the Metaphysics of Quality is that, though SOM science likes to imagine that it is coolly and absolutely objective in its studies, it isn't. No such absolute objectivity is possible. A good scientist makes value judgements every bit as subjective as those made by society, though the inspiration for these judgements is different, being dynamic rather than static. See the paragraph beginning "Now, it should be stated at this point that the Metaphysics of Quality SUPPORTS the dominance of intellect over society." (LILA-HB, 277) So, as I see it, the MOQ doesn't idolize Socrates at all, and certainly doesn't claim that truth stands independently of ALL social opinion. See below. rmp via sam: "What the Metaphysics of Quality makes clear is that it is only social values and morals, particularly church values and morals, that science is unconcerned with. msh: Right, but he is talking about SOM science, not MOQ science. MOQ science is better because it can and should be concerned with moral considerations. So this passage must be understood in that light. rmp continues: "There are important historic reasons for this: The doctrine of scientific disconnection from social morals goes all the way back to the ancient Greek belief that thought is independent of society, that it stands alone, born without parents. Ancient Greeks such as Socrates and Pythagoras paved the way for the fundamental principle behind science: that truth stands independently of social opinion. It is to be determined by direct observation and experiment, not by hearsay. Religious authority always has attacked this principle as heresy. For its early believers, the idea of a science independent of society was a very dangerous notion to hold. People died for it. The defenders who fought to protect science from church control argued that science is not concerned with morals. Intellectuals would leave morals for the church to decide. But what the larger intellectual structure of the Metaphysics of Quality makes clear is that this political battle of science to free itself from domination by social moral codes was in fact a moral battle! It was the battle of a higher, intellectual level of evolution to keep itself from being devoured by a lower, social level of evolution." (chapter 24, about a page in). msh says: These last two sentences are very important, IMO. The battle for science to free itself from the restrictions of social-dominated thought was a moral battle because social domination was threatening intellectual survival. What the MOQ says is , OK, the threat is past, (though I'm not so sure) so now let's catch our breath and apply unfettered intellect to the split between society and science. When we do, we see that not everything about social restrictions is negative, and the positive elements should be incorporated into our newly-freed intellectual understanding of the world. Thanks, Mark Steven Heyman (msh) -- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
