Jon and Ian,
I don't have much to say in response to Ian's post but Ian did wonder what I meant by irrational, which is a good thing to wonder about.
Irrationality is the tendency to draw a conclusion before thinking it over very critically and before confirming this conclusion against experience. Such conclusions are usually wrong. It's a common occurrence and nothing to be truly ashamed of, especially because getting something exactly right is incredibly difficult. The hallmarks of wrong or dubious conclusions are inconsistency (the conclusion contradicts the pertinent data) and incompleteness (not as bad as inconsistency but here not all the pertinent data is explained). Irrational arguments are based on false premises, bad logic,and misdirected logic (suddenly the problem changes in mid-argument). There might be more but that's all I can think of at the moment.
I like to differentiate irrational arguments from non-rational ones. Non-rational arguments involve broad leaps of logic (faith) and conclusions that are unverifiable. No one can say a non-rational argument is wrong but one might have a subjective feeling that it is improbable or farfetched.
JON:
Pirsig talks about his problems with the sci-method on pages 114-118 (25th
anniversary paperback) of ZMM. It actually led to his expulsion from college.
He was baffled as to why no one seemed to question the validity of the
sci-method.
Thanks. I'll look it over later.
JON:
I don't think it's a good idea to treat the world as morally vacuous as long
as people aren't concerned. I discussed this with Ian a few weeks ago. I
believe morality is a fundamental part of reality, such as gravity, but just
because we don't understand it is no reason to dismiss it. Particles,
molecules, lions and baby gazelles are all subject to the forces of gravity.
Likewise, they are all subject to the forces of morality.
That's just my opinion, of course. I would venture a guess that most posters
don't agree with me on this issue, so I don't want to give the impression
that I'm talking for anybody else.
What are the consequences of this belief of yours? Are you saying we should stop smashing atoms in accelerators because it's immoral in some sense? You seem to be mixing in Pirsig's ideas about morality. Even Pirsig says the morality of molecules is a distant cousin of human morality. Let's be practical here. You are really stretching an argument.
GLENN:
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.
JON:
I think most everyone has the capacity for deepness. Being shallow in certain
areas is a choice. <snip>
You're being unclear or irrational here. A person cannot be both shallow and deep unless you are mixing definitions in some way.
JON:
I think it keeps deteriorating because people are not concerned. But I don't
blame people for not being concerned, because it's often hard to apprehend
that anything is wrong, especially when so many people are in comfort zones.
And yes strictly speaking it is more moral for an intellectual pattern to
subvert a social pattern. But NOT if that pattern leads to the destruction of
BOTH patterns! That's a murder-suicide.
Well if we nuke ourselves into oblivion our disagreement will be academic but in the meantime plenty of people are worried about that and lots of other social ills but according to you not enough people are and before it's because of the amorality of science and now it's because so many people live in comfort. Let's go back to the year 1500, when science was nearly non-existent and when far fewer people lived in comfort. By your argument the world was more socially responsible then. Do you think so?
GLENN:
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.
JON:
No, I don't think Pirsig makes it sound that way. That's exaggerating. But I
don't think anyone can doubt that the declarations of science about the
"basic nature" of reality is what we have grown to accept in our everyday
lives, things we accept on a subliminal level (such as gravity keeps us on
the ground, the earth is round, etc).
Well, the quote from Pirsig says "Morals can't function normally because morals have been declared intellectually illegal by the SOM that dominates present social thought." He's saying morals are illegal according to science. This is not true. He's basing this conclusion on the false premise that science explains all of reality or at least in the belief that most people think this. Poppeycock. Subliminally? Doubtful. No scientist claims this and the vast majority of people do not believe this. This is just a false impression you and Pirsig and many members of this website share and frankly it's not anyone else's problem. If people were truly influenced by science as Pirsig says then the human world would be an amoral place. Clearly it's anything but that.
JON:
Laws, police, and courts are on a totally different level from science. The
courts are on the social level, but even this level has been radically
influenced by science and so-called scientific evidence. Science has
permeated literally everything. Including the way we think about morality.
I have no trouble separating morality and science. Do you? I suspect you don't either. Who does?
What do you mean by "so-called scientific evidence"? You mean finger prints? DNA?
GLENN:
<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.
JON:
No reputable scientific journal could or would declare this because science
isn't concerned with morals. That's part of the problem.
You're missing the point. You said "science has declared". You're either being sloppy with words, histrionic, or you're confusing what science is about and what science claims. Would you say there's a problem with the field of ethics if it doesn't address black holes?
GLENN:
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.
JON:
You hit the nail right on the head with your second sentence. It proves the
point I was trying to make. I'll say it again: Even DUMB people know science
isn't concerned with morals (Jerry Springer's guests seem dumb to me). These
same dumb people accept what science says about reality (gravity is real, the
earth is round, etc), and no where does science say that morality is real, or
that people should be concerned with it. It's just a matter of connecting the
dots.
What I meant to say was that even Jerry Springer guests don't have an *expectation* that science concern itself with morals because much of science doesn't deal with the human realm. People just aren't troubled by it. You're connecting dots that aren't on the same piece of paper.
JON:
I assure you I don't think there is any "conspiracy" by scientists or anybody
else. And scientists themselves are not to blame. I've said that many times.
Good, then let's agree to blame the people who think this way.
Subject-Object thinking is a valuable tool, but morality is valuable too.
Agreed.
JON:
I don't think Pirsig despises science at all, and he had problems with the
sci-method long before his mental illness (in fact it was one of the factors
that *caused* his mental illness, as I understand it). IF he despises
anything, I think it's the way SO thinking dominates present thought.
Well, Pirsig pays lip service to science, but he undermines it at every opportunity. I'd say he respects it, but in the kind of way you respect a powerful adversary. People on this website do the same thing. Read your swipe about "so-called scientific evidence".
GLENN:
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.
JON:
He's pounds at it because it needs pounding on. Amoral objectivity as a tool
to be used in certain areas is fine, but IMO it's pervading our minds and
effecting the way we think about morality. He doesn't want to destroy science
or objectivity or rationality.
I didn't say he wanted to destroy it. He's not that foolish. I said he wanted to "discredit [it] enough...".
GLENN:
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.
JON:
He's not trying to discredit science or objectivity or rationality.
Of course he is. How is he going to get anybody to believe in DQ, for example, if he doesn't?
He's trying to get us to reevaluate these things, keeping Quality in mind (whereas
science does not keep Quality in mind). Morally, we're already slipping down
a steep slope, and Pirsig wants to stop us from slipping further.
Pirsig talks about quality entering science because how else do you evaluate how good a theory is? The scientific method is actually a quality idea. So science *does* keep quality in mind.
GLENN:
The scientific-method does not have some sinister, ultimate goal. You've
reached a rather amazing conclusion.
JON:
The goal is sinister only if you care about preserving humanity. Humanity as
we now know it, that is.
Scientists are very proud of the fact that science has such a good track
record of eliminating our "problems." It takes away our hunger, our sickness,
etc. Is it really that difficult to imagine some distant future where it
decides that our very bodies are a problem, and turns us into some kind of
"higher" lifeform, superior to our current one?
Of course it's easy to imagine that; it's the idea of countless sci-fi
stories. And many people think that's a perfectly logical distant (very
distant) future goal. Why keep these primitive bodies that die in so short a
time, why keep these primitive brains and these illogical emotions? I don't
think science would be acting illogically to one day rid us of our humanity,
would it?
I don't want to give the impression that I'm some kook who thinks there's
some grand conspiracy to cause all these things to happen. I don't think
that. It just seems like a logical progression from where we are now, and
before we "get rid" of our humanity we must get rid of morality and emotions.
I guess I'm a conservative in the sense that I want humanity to keep its
emotions.
You say you are not one for conspiracy theories right after describing one you believe in. Come on, Jon!
We have to be vigilant, don't we? We have to make sure we don't nuke ourselves to oblivion or genetically engineer ourselves into oblivion. But I really, really, don't believe the long-range goal of the scientific community is to "get rid of morality and emotions". I think you've seen too many sci-fi pictures, none of which portray scientists in a very nice light, almost like they're inhuman. Hollywood perpetuates this stereotype and it's very disturbing. Try watching more science shows on TV like Nova
and Scientific American Frontiers and watch how science is done and hear scientists interviewed at work and you'll start seeing a different picture emerge.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:45 BST