Hey all,
This is just for all of those 'absolute truth' fans out there (especially my
friend Platt)....
PIRSIG (p254-255)
It's ironic that although the philosophy of science leaves no room for
any undefined Dynamic activity, it's science's unique organization for the
handling of the Dynamic that gives it its superiority. Science superseded
old religious forms, not because what it says is more true in any absolute
sense (whatever THAT is), but because what it says is more dynamic.
If scientists had simply said that Copernicus was right and Ptolemy was
wrong without any willingness to further investigate the subject, then
science would have simply become another minor religious creed. But
scientific truth has always contained an overwhelming difference from
theological truth: IT IS PROVISIONAL (emphasis added). Science always
contains an eraser, a mechanism whereby new Dynamic insight could wipe out
old static patterns without destroying science itself. Thus science, unlike
orthodox theology, has been capable of continuous, evolutionary growth. As
Phaedrus had written on one of his slips, 'The pencil is mightier than the
pen.'
Does anybody still care to argue that Pirsig supports absolute truth???
Anybody?
rick
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:52 BST