David B and fellow focs,
David B. has given us another thought provoking post. Much of it argues the
virtues of SOM and its brainchild, science. Near the end, however, he states his
case for why SOM and science need to be replaced. Here are my comments and
questions for David.
> There is little doubt that scietific
> objectivity is better than the thing it replaced, but now it needs to be
> replaced. SOM's work is done, but it lingers too long.
But earlier in your post you say:
"The new paradigm is gonna need scientific rationality just as molecules need
atoms and intellect needs language."
I want you to clarify the role of science in the MOQ paradigm. You say science
will be replaced, but what I think you mean is that it will be overshadowed or
lorded over by something else. Science will not go away, just as religion didn't
go away when science took over. It will just play second fiddle. To what,
quality? What is the "expanded rationality" you speak of in the the new
paradigm, and how will it operate?
> It has become a drag
> on evolution, mostly because its seen as producing such solid, irrefutable
> and final truths. Yes, science is supposed to be opened ended, but
> objectivity is a very rigid thing, no?
Let's review. Objectivity is very rigid (by definition). The inorganic and
biological levels are objective. The laws of science are objective. People are
subjective. Science itself is practiced by people and science gets nowhere
without the dance between static and dynamic quality - theory, hypotheses,
experiments, guesses, peer review, trial and error, and technology. Believe me,
it's got a good track record for being open-ended.
I don't know what you mean about it being a drag on evolution, unless you mean
science is stuck-in-neutral cranking out the truths of the inorganic and
biological levels. But are you forgetting that technology is fueling the Giant,
and that scientific research is highly intellectual?
> This is where the negative side of SOM comes into the picture. It was great
> to differentiate social and intellecual values. It was great to make all
> these new distinctions, it was the creation of a new world, an invention
> more than a discovery. But its gone too far past distinct, now we are
> dis-associated and alienated.
Maybe, but it's not at all clear to me that SOM is responsible for the
alienation outside a very small percentage of educated people (see my first
post). The average guy doesn't make these distinctions, and if you point them
out to him, he says "OK, so what?" You see, the mind/matter split is a problem
at academic institutions, but not around the water cooler or dinner table. The
argument that SOM is deep and broad and affects us all subliminally is a great
big "maybe" in my book.
> And I think Pirsig chooses the label "SOM" because the distinction between
> subjects and objects is at the heart of this disassociation. Its like the
> mother of all dehumanizing dualisms.
This reminds me of the old Bob Seger song, "I'm Not a Number". Obviously Bob was
feeling dehumanized when he wrote that song. But we've all made the choice to go
the technology route and it's like David said, there's no going back. We resent
the numbers that invade our lives but we'd still rather whip out our credit card
at the grocer than hunt for our dinner with a bow and arrow.
There's no denying that *all* people feel malaise, though. But there is a better
explanation than "SOM done it". Pirsig supplies the answer in one of his most
lucid and convincing passages in Lila. It's what Walker Percy's essay in Ch. 9
is all about. It asks "why is a man apt to feel bad in a good environment, say
Short Hills, New Jersey, on an ordinary Wednesday afternoon? Why is the same man
apt to feel good in a bad environment, like an old hotel in Key Largo, in a
hurricaine?" Pirsig explains it's because the suburban home is filled with
boring, static patterns and the hurricaine "promises a *Dynamic* relief from the
static patterns".
My family likes to go camping in the summer. The DeWeese's in ZMM might say,
"It's a way of getting away from it all - the technology, the whole thing." For
those few days we are happier camping than we would be at home. But does this
mean we should sell our house and camp the rest of our lives? No. Are we happy
because we are escaping the world created by SOM? No. Are we happy because this
is just plain different from what we're used to? Yes.
The gumption trap malaise is just the opposite. In this case we wish to wallow
in the security of static patterns and avoid the dynamic qualities needed to
tackle a job unfamiliar to us. When the job before us is a broken motorcycle or
leaky toilet we are once again seduced into thinking that the malaise is caused
by the technology, the root of which is SOM. It's not.
> On the negative side, science is pretty
> worthless with any reality that isn't physical. And physicality is just one
> facet of ourselves, the most obvious and least interesting aspects of
> reality. Scientific objectivity only fails on the issues THAT ACTUALLY
> MATTER!
Whether or not you represent the majority opinion about what's obvious,
interesting, or matters, I agree this is a huge failing of SOM. So we have a
nice metaphysics in MOQ to complement (scratch "replace") SOM, but no nice tool
to complement science, i.e. one that explains non-physical aspects of ourselves
(values, emotions, behaviors) and satisfies rational people (explanations not
involving oiuja boards or the Id and the Ego). Are ideas cooking behind your
"expanded rationality"?
> See how SOM dis-connects us from ourselves? Alienation? You bet? We can't
> even locate our consciousness. We can't even find the center of our own
> awareness. We've lost our minds.
I can't speak for everyone, but I think I still have mine!Regards,
Glennn
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST