From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Nov 16 2002 - 08:35:39 GMT
Hey Jon, Sam, Platt, Horse, Wim, Marco and all,
Wow. Thanks for all the responses. I'll try to answer each response and
clarify my position as I go. Just to mark the focus of the thread, I've
placed the quote at issue right here at the top.
PIRSIG (from Sam's edit)
"In the MOQ all organisms are
objective. They exist in the material world. All societies are subjective.
They exist in the mental world. Again, the distinction is very sharp. For
example, the "President of the U.S." is a social pattern. No objective
scientific instrument can distinguish a President of the U.S. from anyone
else.... This is a stretch that seems to destroy the meaning of the word
"society." One could say "an atom is a society of electrons and protons,"
but that weakens the meaning of the word without gaining anything....Using
the MOQ description of biology as objective and society as subjective, it is
clear that sheep are biological. A herd of sheep is also biological.... One
can also call ants and bees "social" insects, but for purposes of precision
in the MOQ, social patterns should be defined as human and subjective.
Unlike cells and bees and ants, they cannot be detected with an objective
scientific instrument. For example, there is no objective scientific
instrument that can distinguish between a king and commoner, because the
difference is social."
............................................................................
....................
WIM
After reading the discussion between mainly Jonathan (14/11 16:48 +0200 and
15/11 15:53 +0200) and Rick (14/11 14:43 -0500), 'distinguishability by an
objective scientific instrument' doesn't seem to be a really sharp
distinction between social (plus intellectual) patterns of values and
biological (plus inorganic) patterns of values after all (contrary to what
Pirsig states in 'Lila's Child').
RICK
As Pirsig explains in the quote above, the MoQ says that all
inorganic/biological patterns are "objective" and all
sociological/intellectual patterns are "subjective". Given this, your point
seems a bit strange to me. For you have essentially said that
distiguishability by an objective instrument doesn't seem to be a really
sharp distinction between objective and subjective patterns.
WIM
Even if Rick were right (which he isn't in my opinion) a distinction between
'discrete' levels shouldn't be so debatable.
RICK
Is it really debatable that objective things can be detected by objective
instruments and subjective things cannot?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JON
Instruments are AIDS for human observation. Telescopes and microscopes don't
see anything for themselves!!! It takes a human to "read" the thermometer.
An X-ray diffractometer doesn't "see" atoms - the human interpreting the
results does that.
RICK
You argue that instruments don't "see" things for themselves, rather,
they are merely aids for enhancing human observation of objective
phenomena... but nobody disputes that (and it's really only tangentially
relevant).
I believe that Pirsig's point was that while "objective scientific
instruments" like microscopes and telescopes and x-ray diffractometers can
aid in the detection of objective (inorganic/biological) patterns, there is
no such sensory aid or measuring device that can aid in the detection of
subjective (social/intellectual) patterns because such patterns exist only
in human understanding. That is, such patterns have no OBJECTIVE qualities
which an "objective instrument" could enhance the observation of.
JON
What instruments do you think the following scientists used: Mendel, Darwin,
Archimedes?
RICK
The type of instruments they used for observation isn't really relevant.
What's relevant is the nature of the patterns they were observing. They
were all observing OBJECTIVE patterns (inorganic/biological). That is, the
kind of patterns the observation of which could be enhanced with the use of
objective scientific instruments.
JON
When it comes down to it, many observations are in fact conclusions. When I
say that I read the thermometer and the temperature was 21 degrees celcius,
practically everyone would consider that to be an observation. It is in fact
a conlcusion, and a wrong one if the thermometer was faulty!!!!
RICK
"Observations" are not the same as "conclusions". I think you meant to say
that often "conclusions" are *mistaken for* "observations". Your example
points out that the supposed "observation" that the temperature is 21
degrees Celsius is actually a "conclusion" based on the observation that the
thermometer reads 21 degrees Celsius, coupled with the supposition that the
thermometer is an accurate reflection of the temperature. This example
amply demonstrates that often conclusion is mistaken for observation. But
the fact still remains that to reach this "conclusion" you first had to
"observe" what the thermometer said before you could start making
conclusions and judgments about the data's significance.
JON
When it comes down to it, eveything is a conclusion - a static pattern of
quality constructed by the human mind to represent a dynamic experience of
quality.
RICK
First you said "many observations are in fact conclusions", then in the
next breath you say, "everything is a conclusion". The possibility of
contradiction aside, you may be right in a very, very ultimate sense, when
you say 'everything is a conclusion'. However, this is a most unpragmatic
use of the word "conclusion" as it now embraces everything and
differentiates nothing. As Pirsig might say, it weakens the meaning of the
word without gaining anything....
------------------------------------------------------------------
HORSE
And a conclusion is another name for a judgement!
RICK
Sure. But under Jon's theory, "observation" is also a synonym for
"judgment" (since "judgment" = "conclusion" and "conclusion" =
"everything").
------------------------------------------------------------------
PLATT (responding to Jon)
By definition and common understanding, an instrument is a mechanical
device. Only a biologist (and a liberal politician) would associate a human
being with something mechanical. :-) I think your view is quite a stretch
of the meaning of "instrument."
RICK
I tend to agree that Jon has undesirably stretched the meaning of
"instrument".
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO
May I dare say I don't agree with Pirsig?
RICK
Heck yeah... I do it all the time. If there's one thing no one can accuse
me of, it's being a blind defender of Pirsig... and I wouldn't want anyone
else to blindly defend him either.
MARCO
As Jonathan points out, it is also impossible to "scientifically detect" the
alpha male ape. So, apes are social. For what I know, it is also impossible
to "scientifically detect" the queen of the bees, so bees are social. Rick's
point: "He was saying it takes a social pattern to recognize a social
pattern" reinforces this objection. I, social, recognize a social (of apes)
pattern.
RICK
First, I do not believe that my point reinforced Jonathan's objection.
You left out the crucial prior line, "...it takes a human mind to draw those
kinds of conclusions." My point was that I believed Pirsig was saying that
since it takes a human mind to recognize social patterns, only humans can
pattern socially. Remember that Pirsig believes that those behaviors we
think we "recognize" in apes and bees are NOT really social. They are
biologically programmed, not socially deliberate. I would suggest that the
"sociological" qualities we think we "recognize" in animals are to a vast
extent the result of the projection of our own characteristics onto the
things we see around us. Apes and bees who follow certain biological,
behavioral dictates do not live in "societies" anymore than cats who lick
their bodies are "taking baths" or dogs who are trained to extend their paw
are "shaking hands".
But I think Sam put the problem best when he asked, "Can the 'social'
elements in a beehive be detected by a 'scientific' instrument? In a way
that human social behavior cannot?" The answer, of course, is yes. A quick
check on the web confirmed that bees who perform different "social" roles in
the hive are biologically distinct from each other (see
http://www.xensei.com/users/alwine/colony.html). You will note that author
of the website describes bees as "social" and living in "societies"... but
keep in mind, he's not writing from an MoQ perspective. Similarly, if you
want the real biological facts on "alpha-male apes" and the similarity of
"ape" societies to human societies, check out something like
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/18/63633/2744 . A search of various
web pages revealed that alpha-male apes are distinguishable based on
biological characteristics like strength, weight, age, levels of aggression,
ability to reproduce, general health and virility, etc.
MARCO
But on the other hand, I don't agree with Rick. A computer in my opinion is
a scientific instrument. It would be strange to tell these scientists they
should not use computers to observe and detect supernovas, cancers, atoms
and so on. Indeed I interpret what the computer detects.... but as well I
interpret also what a ruler detects, as Jonathan rightly says.
RICK
Again, I believe Pirsig's ultimate point was not about the nature of the
instrument doing the detecting, but rather was about the nature of the
pattern being observed. That is, whether the pattern has qualities that are
detectable via observation; that is, "objective" qualities... the kind of
qualities the detection of which can be enhanced by the use of objective
scientific instruments.
Ultimately, whether apes and bees live in societies or not is
philosophical question, not a scientific one and we are all entitled to draw
the line where we feel it is best to do so. Pirsig has drawn his line
between subjective and objective patterns and placed societies clearly on
the subjective (exclusively-human) side. His choice seems to have been
axiomatic and made for the pragmatic reasons of maintaining a sharp
distinction between levels and a clear meaning for the term "society".
Personally, I am comfortable with thinking of bees and apes as exhibiting
biological pre-cursors to social characteristics which are exclusively
human. To each his own. But I think I'm with Pirsig on this one.
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 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 16 2002 - 08:36:05 GMT