From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 20:29:16 GMT
DMB, Glenn, Horse, John, Magnus, all
This is a reply to DMB and Magnus' comments and a general statement on my
part on all the, um, negativity going on right now.
On the actual science stuff:
John said:
Pirsig claims that the MOQ is scientific and, in doing so, belittles
science, because that claim is false (spurious, therefore deserving of
contempt by your values and unworthy of being disproved!).
Magnus then said:
Did I miss something here? Why should such a claim belittle science? I
know my view of the MoQ is fairly extreme in this aspect but I take the
M of MoQ literally. I think it does a great job of explaining the
reality around us. A much better job than the other dominating world
view Pirsig calls SOM. To me, that's science. To be able to explain and
comprehend reality without conflicts and platypi.
Matt:
Pirsig's claim belittles science from scientism's point of view because it
expands the definition of science to mean somthing like, "explain and
comprehend reality without conflicts and platypi." On this definition of
science, what was was just called "science" (principally thought as the
"natural sciences") is now leveled down to size to sit next to the social
sciences, humanities, and religion as cultural activities. While I agree
with the leveling that Pirsig attempts, I disagree with the expansion of
the definition of science to mean "explain and comprehend reality without
conflicts and platypi." I think Pirsig took the wrong route, by trying to
elevate everything to a science by expanding what science means. The route
I think he should have attempted was to say that science is one way of
explaining reality, there are others.
DMB said:
It seems pretty clear to me that Pirsig is only doing what nearly every
post-modern thinker has done since Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was
published a couple of centuries ago. Namely, he discusses the limitations
and inadequacies of science and rationality. This say belittles science just
isn't accurate. As I'm sure you're all quite aware, Pirsig's MOQ puts
science, along with other intellectual fields, at the top of the heap.
Matt:
I agree completely about Pirsig and philosophers since Kant. However, I'm
still holding to the fact that, from Glenn and John's point of view, from
scientism's point of view, this is belittling science. It is accurate in
this sense. To say that its not, I think, is to enshrine your own view as
from a "God's-eye" viewpoint (to use Hilary Putnam's phrase) and has found
the One, True Viewpoint and then say everyone else is wrong. I don't think
this is possible, and rather than this, I think it helps to see what
everyone else is trying to say.
And your last point here, "Pirsig's MOQ puts science, along with other
intellectual fields, at the top of the heap," is what I'm saying shouldn't
have been done, as above. Rather than an upward movement of all
disciplines, I should have wanted him to make a downward movement of science.
On the negativity:
I can't claim moral highground on internet civility, as all will be aware
if you've been following Steve's and my exchange on poverty. But this
exchange between Glenn and Horse, Horse and John, John and DMB, John and
Platt, and all, it reminds me of high school, and it reminds me of
something occuring right now with my closest friends. As soon as somebody
sinks down to a low level, rather than stand their ground and retain the
rhetorical high ground, everybody follow right along.
I think the best thing for everyone to do is to just _ignore_ criticims on
style and belligerency. Horse and Glenn have gotten into it, and their
spittin' and fightin', but the last thing we need is for everybody to
choose sides. If you think Horse has a point with a call for evidence, ask
Glenn, "I would also like some textual evidence, please. Thank you,"
rather than "Yeah, Glenn. Horse is right. You never do anything right,
you are a big liar, etc., etc." Stay out of it.
Look, I think this does affect us all. I think John has a point when he
says that its kinda' disappointing to see the owner of the site acting like
this. I think Horse has done a great job overall. He's always been polite
and nice and encouraging to me and I've always tried to do the same for
him. He doesn't get enough recognition for all the work he does for the
site and the fact that its all for free, all on his time. And I want to
thank him for that. But I cringed when he started opening up on Glenn like
that. As somebody wrote to me recently, its like Struan all over again
and, with apologies to Glenn if he was going for Struan levels of meanness,
Glenn's just not like Struan. I think all of this needs to stop on all
sides. Just ignore it. That's my plea. Obviously, nobody has to listen,
and I understand that somebody started it, and there's back history, and,
and... Just like my 3rd grade teacher told me, somebody also has to stop
it. It would be a lot more clear if somebody stepped over the line when
writing to somebody else if there were less people stepping over the line,
particularly when those people are regulars.
Please, please, please. Don't be like my asshole friends.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 20:23:50 GMT