RE: MD "linear causality"

From: Glenn Bradford (gmbbradford@netscape.net)
Date: Sat Jan 04 2003 - 06:49:25 GMT

  • Next message: john williams: "Re: MD Quality decisions"

    Horse,
    I will not honour your request to provide specific evidence here
    because I've been doing this all along, and I don't think
    that a dashed-out list will do my arguments justice.
    You've had ample opportunity to complain about any of my past
    science-related posts, but since you generally have not, I thought
    your emergence from lurkerland was prompted by the word "belittle",
    and so I was quick to tell you what I meant by that. You have lumped
    "vilifies", "maligns", and "decry" with "belittle". These are
    directionally correct but they're obviously of a different temper.

    Pirsig's attitude toward science is my plank - my angle - my main
    reason for being here. I've spent two years writing posts about it,
    and I think it's essential to look at these attitudes square on
    to have a fuller appreciation of what motivates Pirsig's
    philosophical positions.

    If I think that some view of Pirsig's about science is mis-guided or
    calculated or hypocritical or based on ignorance, I will let you know
    and tell you why I think so. You don't have to agree. I also find
    entirely reasonable Pirsig's position that science is not beyond
    criticism. I just don't agree, by and large, with his criticisms.
    Glenn

    "Horse" <horse@darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

    >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

    __________________________________________________________________
    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 04 2003 - 06:50:02 GMT