Hello Glenn
I thought you bringing up Carl Sagan was interesting because I kept thinking
of the movie Contact (based on Sagan novel I think?) in reading your recent
posts.
I had seen the movie before reading any of Pirsig and always liked the theme
of religion and science and the role of technology.
GLENN:
The late great Carl Sagan wrote his opinion on the nuclear
power debate. Why would he or any other scientist bother to do these
things if science doesn't recognize social values?
ERIN: Contact was a very good movie that showed the parallels in religion and
science between Jody Foster's character of a scientist and the religous guy
Matthew McConnaughy. Although Jody Foster was very skeptical of religion and
wanted the two to be separate the movie continually showed the parallels.
I think it is ridiculous if you try to paint Pirsig as anti-scientific.
He is just not a fundamentalist in the Church of Reason.
Going back to Contact again the ending of the movie had a quote from Matthew
character that the two characters were bound by different contracts but had
the same destination and I for one believe her(something like that).
I thought the ending was so great. By Ochm's principle (simplest answer is the
best one) Jody had to grant the possibiity that her experience was not real
even though she BELIEVED it was real.
Since you expressed a liking for Carl Sagan I would like your opinion about
the movie Contact (I really liked it).
Do you see any danger (danger as in oversimplification of the common
destination of truth) in your skepticism of mysticism.
Let use the analogy of Jody's experience Pirsig experiencing dharmakaya light.
Somebody offers an Ochm answer such as it is just a psychotic hallucination.
You can believe Pirsig on "faith" or you can belive Ochm on "faith".
Whether you believe Jody or Pirsig sometimes seems almost a character
judgement---- how scientific (sarcasm)!!!!!!!!!!!
There are scientists who fake data--that is an ethical issue.
Truth seems to be the common destination of religion and science and the
contracts of faith and skepticism play a role in both!!
GLENN: I'm glad you don't think science is the root of the problem and I
certainly
agree with you that technology has exacerbated existing problems. A nuclear
war *could* make the world uninhabitable. I'm also happy that you
point out that the history of humankind has always been subjected to death
and misery by invading armies, long before science came of age.
I also agree with your balanced statement that science seems to have
"endless potential for colossal goods and Earth-shattering evils".
CONTACT " I don't hate technology. I just hate when people deify it at the
expense of others."
Erin
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 - 16:02:19 BST