From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 01:05:58 GMT
Matt and all:
Matt had said:
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 says:
Does Pirsig define science this way? I don't see it. Does he put it down
with religion and other "cultural activites", whatever that is? No. Those
are third level things. You'd agree that the social science IS science? I'm
fine with the conventional notion that some of the sciences are "harder"
than others, but in the MOQ, natural science is NOT the only science. Its
not the only kind of intellectual level activity. In this sense, physics in
on the same level as history, philosophy, and the other humanities. I don't
recall Pirsig ever saying, or even implying, that science is the only way to
explain things. Yes, he elevates the intellect and science along with it,
but this is only to make a distinction between these various rational
explanations and social level traditions like god, guns and glory. He
elevates science above religion and ritual, but that's far different than
what you see.
Matt continued:
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.
DMB asked:
You wanted him to make a downward movement of science? I smell another pet
theory that only confuses and distorts things, but I'll bite. What the heck
does that mean?
Matt replied:
Like I said before, rather than moving everything UP to the level of
science (by stretching out what science means), you move science DOWN to
the level of everything else. You deflate its cultural ego by telling them
that they haven't found the Real Way Towards Truth. That they are just
good at figuring out what to do with rocks, but with texts they should
leave it to Comp Lit professors.
DMB says:
Huh? I think one of us is terribly confused about the MOQ. I don't
understand how you've come to the conclusion that Pirsig has moved
"everything up to the level of science"? Sure, he does some philosophy of
science and discusses the nature of it, but I don't see how this elevates
"everything" to a science. Religion is not science. Organisms are not
science. Rocks are not science. There are three things that have not been
elevated. I could name several billion more things if I had the time. And is
it not true that Pirsig insists on the provisionality of scientific
understanding, effectively saying "they haven't found the Real Way Towards
Truth"? You bet he does.
Its becoming more clear to me as our conversations continue. I'd have to go
back and read all your previous posts to make any sense of the current ones.
I've caught you in the middle of something. I don't blame you for not
wanting to re-state all your ideas or provide the special definitions you're
using here. Hopefully, you don't blame me for not wanting to go back through
your stuff. It makes me a little sad. I wish you could just use words as
they are defined in the average household dictionary and/or spell out the
special meaning you're using at the time. Your jargon is driving me mad. For
example, you explained in a different post that you substituted Rorty's
"sincere" with "incorrigable". Isn't that very much like using the word
"stupid" where Rorty meant "honest"? These words aren't even close in their
meanings, so making the switch strikes me as a gross distortion. Likewise,
Rorty seems to use the word "metaphysics" as some kind of substitute for
"bedrock dogma all the way to the bone", as is demonstated in the thinking
of a religous zealot. Clearly, Pirsig is no religious zealot and never
intended to compose the "bedrock dogma" of Quality. He is using the word in
a different, more conventional, way than Rorty. Anyway, if you want to just
give up on me, I wouldn't blame you. According to a private e-mail that was
sent on your behalf, you're a young philosophy student and I'm supposed to
go easy on you. Don't worry. I'd never condescend in that way. I could dish
it out and take it twenty years ago, when I was a young philosophy student,
and its pretty clear to me that you can too. So, I'd encourage you to
indulge me a little. Even though we apparently disagee about huge matters, I
still think its a treat to converse with another philosophy hack like
myself.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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 12 2003 - 01:06:39 GMT