ROGER JOINS IN ON THE RECENT ATTACKS ON SCIENCE AND THE ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE
IT TO 'MATERIALISM'
To David, Platt, and Struan:
DAVID RECENTLY WROTE:
<<I've been seeing a lot of physics, biology and computer language in the
discussion of the levels. In my view, this is a futile exercise that will
only result in ment brains. Its mixing the two metaphysical systems in very
confused ways.>>
AND PLATT RECENTLY REPLIED TO STRUAN ON CURRENT SCIENCE'S REPLACEMENT OF
MATTER WITH 'VALUE':
<<Well, try as I might, I don't detect any reference in these quotes,
explicit or implicit, to morality or moral judgment. Unless your quotees
say or suggest somewhere in their writings that "the world is primarily a
moral order," I fail to see how you can conclude that their views are
compatible with the MoQ. ........Perhaps, as you say, the classical
subject-object paradigm has been dumped by "coherent materialism." But if
the new materialist paradigm is to look at properties "in terms of
relationships of patterns of value" as you claim, then your definition of
values appears to be numerical values such as found in mathematical formulas
rather than moral values as set forth in the MoQ.>>
ROGER NOW ADDS:
I think we need to clarify current science and the MOQ. The two of you seem
to have more restrictive interpretations than Struan and I on both.
To anyone unfamiliar with Lila, 'moral orders' would sound like 'social
moral orders'. Pirsig of course explains that this is just one level of
value - albeit one that does influence science. And David is right that most
scientists are engulfed in materialism, SOM and reductionism. However, this
doesn't change the results of their experiments or cause their dials to read
differently, it only affects their interpretations of the data.
As time goes on, more and more scientists will come to face the
inconsistencies of their value systems and world views. The MOQ, if it is
correct, will emerge eventually as the best way to evaluate and apply
context to experiments and to form theories. But in the mean time,
scientists will continue to plod along and discover intellectual patterns of
value and beauty - especially to those of us that apply these 'truths'
within the framework of value/quality/morality.
Quantum physics and relativity theory explain reality in terms of value and
relationships and deny the existence of independent things. Complexity
theory explains reality in terms of dynamics, freedom, attractors (patterns
of value), and emergent levels. Science is quickly evolving into an entry
level course in MOQ.
In Lila and SODV, Pirsig embraces and absorbs empiricism, pragmatism and
science - though he puts them in their place as one static level. Then he
actually extends them and shows the inadequacies in their theories and
suggests a superior world view. He adds the 'meta' to the physics.
I agree completely with much of Platt and David's criticisms on the
inadequacies of
materialism and science, but this does not mean we should avoid or disavow
this level. We need to apply and evaluate the MOQ within all levels.
Roger
PS....Do the following sound like materialism to anyone?
<<Subatomic particles are not 'things', but 'interconnections.'>>
F. Capra
<<The world thus appears as a complicated tissue of events, in which
connections of different kinds alternate or overlap or combine and therefore
determine the texture of the whole>>
W. Heisenberg
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:49 BST