From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat May 14 2005 - 17:58:07 BST
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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 16 2005 - 04:59:52 BST