From: Horse (horse@darkstar.uk.net)
Date: Fri Jan 03 2003 - 19:47:52 GMT
Hi Glenn and All
I specifically asked you to provide some evidence to support your claim that Pirsig
belittles science and you gave me quotes from Jung and made further spurious and
incorrect claims and generalisations.
Nor is your historical and consistent misinterpretation of Pirsigs position evidence of
Pirsig belittling science.
Pirsigs position is that science is not beyond criticism which, to me, is entirely
reasonable. Criticism is necessary to the evolution and advancement of science. Or do
you believe that those that criticise science (or the way it is practised) commit some
heretical act.
So I'll ask once again: where does Pirsig belittle, malign, cheapen, "lessen the authority,
dignity, or reputation of", denigrate, decry, bad-mouth or vilify science.
Horse
On 3 Jan 2003 at 1:07, Glenn Bradford wrote:
> Horse and all,
> By "belittle" I mean to lessen the authority, dignity, or reputation
> of. For example, here is something Jung wrote:
>
> Through scientific understanding, our world has
> become dehumanised. Man feels himself isolated
> in the cosmos. He is no longer involved in nature
> and has lost his emotional participation in natural
> events, which hitherto had a symbolic meaning for
> him. Thunder is no longer the voice of a god, nor
> is lightning his avenging missile. No river contains
> a spirit, no tree makes a mans's life, no snake is
> the embodiment of wisdom and no mountain still
> harbours a great demon. Neither do things speak to him
> nor can he speak to things, like stones, springs, plants
> and animals."
>
> This general sentiment is felt by Pirsig and many an
> MOQite. People here prefer animism and myths and other
> pre-scientific ideas to science and I don't think
> this is some fluke. Scientific intellectualism is the
> reason for the insanity and psychic loneliness of the 20th
> century, remember? And the Church of Reason. Isn't that a
> bit of a come down? Read my past posts if you want more
> evidence. I've written plenty about it, from his take on the
> scientific method to his view on zoology and many points in
> between.
> Glenn
>
> "Horse" <horse@darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
>
> >Hi All
> >
> >On 2 Jan 2003 at 0:06, Glenn Bradford wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, the Jungians (and Pirsig) are quite ambivalent and
> >> in some ways hypocritical in their attitudes toward science. No
> >> sooner do they belittle science than they ask for its expansion
> >> so that their dearest ideas can be admitted as such.
> >>
> >
> >You seem to have a real problem with Pirsig and science. Why don't you provide some
> >evidence to show how and where Pirsig belittles science.
> >
> >Horse
> >
> >
> >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
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp
>
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Fri Jan 03 2003 - 19:45:47 GMT