Hi all,
On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 13:59:09 -0400, you wrote:
>Jon,
>Hi. I saw your post on the MD and thought I'd respond because I disagree with you and Pirsig and probably many others in the forum on many points.
>
><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."
>
>That's because people are basically irrational by nature. Being rational does not come naturally and most people aren't up to it. It's too hard.
This is a rather intriguing statement. To say that people are
irrational.
I wonder what you mean by irrational.
Do you perhaps mean that people react emotionally to situations and
that this overrides their intellect?
The thing is that I find that people behave predictably. If a
predictable reaction is irrational then their may well be a fault with
rationality.
It might be suggested that the rational solution might effect a more
beneficial outcome. Yet I see little in history that affords that
rationality shows any markedly higher rate of success than
emotionality.
It must surely be said that there are times when rationality is
appropriate and there are times when emotionality are appropriate?
>
><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.
>
>The scientific method is just a general procedure for how to go about performing science objectively. Enforcing objectivity is not a burden on the method, as you say, but a burden on peers who review that the method is followed. If you are using "artificial" here in a pejorative sense I don't see why. Plenty of artificial things have high value.
The scientific method is often a useful tool to achieve an end. I
would be reluctant to use it were I to be found in bed with a woman
other than the woman I <notionally> love(d).
Tools for the job my friend.
<snip>
>Treating the world as morally vacuous is perfectly alright so long as people aren't concerned. The study of electrons, silicon, volcanoes, and a myriad of other things that fall under the parlance of science do not enter into the moral sphere. We don't even judge the morality of a lion hunting down a baby gazelle.
>
>Scientists *can* infer the purpose of some things. For living things, a purpose is to survive long enough to reproduce.
Is that the only purpose that exists/can exist?
Can we then say that Alan Turing had <NO> purpose and that some bowsey
living on social security and siring many offspring <HAS> purpose?
>
><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)?
>
>A niggly thing, but shallow people can't have something deep down. It's a contradiction. Frankly, I think shallow peoples' morals are hardly influenced by science and the value they place on life (or lack thereof) is formed elsewhere.
I suggest that you pick up (and read) a copy of "Mans search for
meaning". As an illustration of the extremes of how people can be
effected by the impact of science (rational evaluation of reality) and
how much value is place d upon life.
>
><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. . ."
>
>Yes I believe he does. But I disagree. I'm not even convinced about the social deterioration. Things were not so rosy in Victorian times either. And even if we are socially worse off now, isn't it moral for an intellectual pattern to subvert society according to his own MOQ? It's confused, don't you think?
I think that on this point we agree.
"I have to admit it's getting better, a little better all the time."
-The beatles
In truth people get scared at any time of great upheaval in society.
In the age where machines started to take over the place of muscle
there was just as much fear and the newspapers of the time carried
much the same scare stories of social disintegration and violence.
Perhaps the only difference is the amount of time we spend exposed to
these <visions> of how the world is. Is it justifiable for a woman to
allow fear of violence to prevent her from taking a walk at night. The
statistics would not match the perceptions or the fears being sold by
an entertainment industry masquerading as a news media.
>
><From the same page: "Morals can't function normally because morals have been
><declared intellectually illegal by the SOM that dominates present social thought."
>
>He makes it sound like scientists are getting on TV and saying they've discovered morals don't exist, and that lawmakers agree and are trying to pass legislation to outlaw them. If this kind of thinking dominates present social thought then why do we still have laws, police, and courts? Me thinks he doth protest too much and it perplexes me why anyone agrees with him on this.
>
This is interesting. As a society we have, within my lifetime, de
constructed the family. We have decided that there is no scientific
evidence to suggest that the family (one man, one woman and their
offspring) are any better at the most basic function of any
_surviving_ society, that is raising *productive* children to a
healthy majority where they can pair off and do exactly what has gone
before.
It needs must be said that, within human memory, we have nothing to
*prove* that this is true. So as a society we see the breakdown of
this *basic* unit of society and it's replacement with many new family
units and a larger number of units which had existed, but in smaller
numbers, in the past. ie One parent families.
We see debated on our TVs, newspapers and radio the idea that same sex
couplings have the <right> to have offspring in direct opposition to
the basic biology of the entire animal kingdom.
It remains to be seen what the outcome of this will be.
We can all tell horror stories about individual cases where things
went wrong. Stories to agree with the new movement and stories to move
against the new movement. Only time will tell us what the outcome of
this becoming the "mainstream" will tell.
This changes our society. We, grown adults, are now allowed to see
"our needs" to be of more importance than the needs of any offspring
we choose to have. When Mom and Dad get bored with each other there is
no longer a MORAL objective to hold the family unit together until
such time as the children are able to look after themselves. We have
allowed a <rational scientific approach> to tell us exactly what we
wanted to hear. We are now free, scientifically, to walk away from our
commitments provided that we provide financially for any offspring.
I do not know where this leads us. Nor does *anyone* else. It has not
happened on such a vast scale in the past. Though it must be said that
for much of the past it was out of the question in any case due to
much lower human lifetimes.
Where will it take us? My guess would be that we will revert at some
point. We will experience another bout of puritanism because we are
not addressing those issues which need addressing if our new direction
is to be made work. OMMV
><In other words, science has declared that morals aren't real, so fewer and
><fewer people have any use for them.
>
>I don't think so. Cite a reputable scientific journal that declares this.
Define "reputable".
Cite a moral scientific journal.
>
><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."
>
>I only agree with your first sentence. Even Jerry Springer guests know that scientists who study choral reefs or galaxy formation have nothing to say about morals, for the simple reason that human beings aren't involved. But when study of atoms leads to a bomb or when the human genome project brings up privacy issues then all kinds of moral debate follows, by scientists and non-scientists alike. In this regard I wouldn't characterize society as gullible.
>
>This idea that we are "subliminally" affected by SOM is a constant theme I hear on this website. It's this idea that there is a deep and broad conspiracy, started by the scientists, toward a certain way of perceiving reality that has us believe substance is real and values are not. The brain-washing begins at birth and when you are grown you pass on the beliefs to your children and in this way there is a mass cultural psychosis. Jon, would you at least entertain the possibility that there is no conspiracy, and that humans' fondness for SO thinking is instead genetically predisposed? I mean, if we perceived the world as a "seamless context" then it would be pretty hard to catch food and our species would be long dead.
>
You have a point...
><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."
>
>They are real. They are 'customs'. It's OK to think morals are as real as rocks and trees, but they are not like rocks and trees.
And science is a snapshot of reality...
>
><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."
>
>Pirsig personally despises science because of the terrible methods it used to treat his mental illness, and more importantly, because he thinks science completely misunderstands insanity and will never be sympathetic to his way of understanding it.
Wow. Quite a statement.
Science perverted to justify barbarism can justifiably be despised. Be
it the dropping of a bomb on hiroshima or the cutting of connections
in the human brain.
Science itself does not exist so it cannot really be despised.
>
>To me, Pirsig is impotently pounding away at "amoral objectivity" here. It's a vital piece of his overall strategy to discredit science, objectivity, and rationality enough so he can make room to legitimize DQ as the ultimate reality, in particular the kind of DQ that is mystical experience. IMO, discrediting science, objectivity, and rationality is not only unjustified but it removes the footholds on the steep slope of progress and causes one to slip down, down into all kinds of psychic garbage. While most psychic garbage is harmless and even good fun, the idea of investing time and energy in false ideas should be abhorrent to people in search of truth. But Pirsig anticipates this as well and even discredits truth (in favor of good). So now you don't have to worry whether your beliefs are true or not. He's very clever, don't you think?
>
><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 scientific-method does not have some sinister, ultimate goal. You've reached a rather amazing conclusion.
Hmm, it is a rather odd conclusion to draw for science. Especially
when you consider that the alternative to science is evolution, and
that very definitely would have as it's ultimate goal the eventual
elimination of <what we now consider> humanity.#
"What did the last Xorn say at his death? Arrgh" Londo.Babylon 5.
slainte
Ian
>
>Glenn
>
>----------
>Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://home.netscape.com/webmail/
>
>
>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