As one who has to utilise the "Sci-method" in my research into human
perception, I have to agree with much of what you say. The thinking that
"science" is a self-contained explanatory system capable of extension to
encompass the whole of "reality" does indeed lurk underneath 20th century
thinking, generally. In fact, the seeds of this idea go right back to Plato
(possibly before), in that he felt that mathematics was so pure and precise
that "higher reality" must be of this sort. But there is a fundamental flaw
in this type of thinking: just as all maths is tautology (in that what is
really being said is that "2+2 = 2+2"), so (IMO) "objective reality" is
entirely hypothetical. The fact that we seem able to agree on so many of
it's features does indeed reinforce the perception of it's independant
existence, which is the reciprocal of our belief in our own independance of
it; but, I maintain, it's an illusion fostered by our own mental equipment.
And our own mental equipment seems remarkably similar to others' (of our
species) probably because we are incredibly closely related, genetically,
and have a remarkably similar social experience, in which we communicate
ideas about the nature of 'reality', a lot.
Oddly, though, I'm not as pessimistic as you, because I don't necessarily
agree that the ultimate goal of science is actually to stamp out nasty
illusions of a subjective nature. I think it will probably be the other way
round, in that science can only disprove itself as a comprehensive
explanation of the universe-we-are-in. I think that those scientists who
believe otherwise are blinkered, and therefore are likely to be less good
scientists.
In the end, perhaps science will 'disappear' into the general fabric of our
thinking, and 'objective science' will become as old-fashioned as Animism
may seem to us now.
The bottom line is that Spock is wrong, and logic isn't the best way to
think about the universe (and recent research into decision-making process
evaluation seems to bear this out).
So it's just an immature phase we're going through.
cheers
ppl
----- Original Message -----
From: <Ascmjk@aol.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: 01 July 2000 05:44
Subject: Re: MD problem
> Hi Group
>
> I'll just toss in some random thoughts since the group is going through
> another dry spell.
>
> First of all, I was giving some thought to Struan's old idea that, in his
> words, "The MOQ depends on Subject-Object Metaphysics for its veracity."
He
> says that no serious philosophers take SOM seriously, and furthermore that
> the subject-object division is not the cornerstone of any serious
philosophy.
> I'm no expert, but I think he may be right.
>
> Pirsig may be the one to blame for all this confusion by constantly using
the
> term "SOM." Struan may be correct that the subject-object division is not
a
> major cornerstone in the world's various philosophies, but IMO that wasn't
> the point Pirsig kept trying to make. Pirsig's point was that the
> subject-object division is NOT a characteristic of reality--only the way
> people think.
>
> So when Pirsig talks about SOM, I don't think he's referring to any major
> group of philosophies or even mainstream academic study of philosophy;
he's
> talking about the basic way people think. Pirsig chose to label this
thinking
> process as Subject-Object-Metaphysics. Perhaps there would have been less
> complaining from Struan if Pirsig had just called it
Subject-Object-Thinking.
> But I could be mixed up.
>
> As some of you may know, I am totally turned off by the logical-positivist
> school of thought, and Objectivism in general. I once found these concepts
> interesting but now they seem very cold and inhuman, and I find it
troubling
> that Ayn Rand has so many admirers. I can understand the initial
fascination
> with Rand's books and the concepts they contain; I think young fledgling
> intellectuals are the most susceptible to her charms. Rand has taken the
> virginity of many young philosophers (if you know what I mean), and that
is a
> shame. I'm glad I found ZMM before Atlas Shrugged.
>
> Most of you know how Pirsig feels about logical-positivism, and
objectivisim
> in general. He says on page 61 of Lila (paperback): "The trouble is that
man
> isn't suited to this kind of scientific objective study."
>
> I agree, and many scientists agree as well. But we agree for different
> reasons, and it all concerns the use of the scientific method. Scientists
> agree humans can't be totally objective, so they place the burden on
> something artificial--the scientific method. Pirsig had many problems with
> the sci-method which he wrote about in ZMM. I'm personally concerned with
the
> ramifications its constant application is having on society and evolution
of
> the human mind.
>
> Lila page 317: "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the
world
> is a completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point to
anything.
> Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything is just functions, like
> machinery. . .<some snipped>. . .There is nothing morally wrong because
there
> are no morals, just functions."
>
> Who here can honestly say they don't see this attitude reflected somewhat
in
> today's world? No morals, just functions. The scary thing is, many shallow
> people seem to believe that, deep down. They really think life has no
> meaning. Does anyone else see a correlation between this viewpoint and our
> country's rampant immorality (the Jerry Springer Show, etc)?
>
> Pirsig himself seems to think this. Here is a quote from Lila, page 351:
> "It's this intellectual pattern of amoral "objectivity" that is to blame
for
> the social deterioration of America. . ."
>
> From the same page: "Morals can't function normally because morals have
been
> declared intellectually illegal by the SOM that dominates present social
> thought."
>
> In other words, science has declared that morals aren't real, so fewer and
> fewer people have any use for them. Now it's true that most people don't
have
> any use for science either, much less the scientific method (for instance,
I
> doubt any guest on the Jerry Springer Show knows what the sci-method is).
The
> point is, the declarations of science on the nature of reality have come
to
> subliminally dominate the foundations of our perceptions. Even the
> foundational thought of stupid people. Science doesn't value morals, so
our
> gullible society doesn't either. They've been trained to think what
science
> says is "real."
>
> So they think morals aren't real. Pirsig, I think, considers morals to be
> real. Here's a quote from Lila, page 355: "These moral bads and goods are
not
> just 'customs.' They are as real as rocks and trees."
>
> Another pertinent quote, Lila page 323: "This scientific, psychiatric
> isolation and futility had become a far *worse* prison of the spirit than
the
> old Victorian 'virtue' ever was."
>
> What will become of us if we keep heading the way we are heading? I'm not
> trying to sound overly pessimistic, but I think some people are overly
> optimistic. Eventual elimination of humanity seems to be the ultimate,
> perfectly logical goal of the scientific-method.
>
> The Sophists of Ancient Greece, forever vilified by Plato, may have been
on
> the right track as Pirsig suggests in ZMM. As I was flipping through "A
> History of Philosophy" by Frederick Copleston, the following quote made me
> smile: ". . .the Sophists <some snipped> for the most part, other than
> philosophical and their relativistic theories DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE BASED ON
> ANY PROFOUND CONSIDERATION OF EITHER THE NATURE OF THE SUBJECT OR THAT OF
THE
> OBJECT." (caps mine)
>
> That's an easy quote to miss, but as an admirer of Pirsig I homed in on
it.
>
> Jon
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:45 BST