From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 22:17:35 GMT
Matt and all:
DMB said previously:
It seems pretty clear to me that Pirsig is only doing what nearly every
post-modern thinker has done since Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was
published a couple of centuries ago. Namely, he discusses the limitations
and inadequacies of science and rationality. This say belittles science just
isn't accurate. As I'm sure you're all quite aware, Pirsig's MOQ puts
science, along with other intellectual fields, at the top of the heap.
Matt replied:
I agree completely about Pirsig and philosophers since Kant. However, I'm
still holding to the fact that, from Glenn and John's point of view, from
scientism's point of view, this is belittling science. It is accurate in
this sense. To say that its not, I think, is to enshrine your own view as
from a "God's-eye" viewpoint (to use Hilary Putnam's phrase) and has found
the One, True Viewpoint and then say everyone else is wrong. I don't think
this is possible, and rather than this, I think it helps to see what
everyone else is trying to say.
DMB says:
So everbody's point of view is correct and thinking otherwise is the
enshrinement of my own point of view as "God's". Oh please. Have words lost
all meaning? Has it become impossible to be mistaken or to have an incorrect
opinion? I must have missed a memo. C'mon! Of course people can be wrong.
The fact that people can misunderstand something is proven many times a day.
As to seeing what "everyone else has to say", I'd be happy to discuss
Pirsig's view of science. I'm listening. And if what I hear strikes me as
wrong, its certainly not because I've confused my views with God's. If I
hear something that sounds like nonsense, its certainly not because I take
my view as the only valid one. If we can't say what is right and wrong, what
is supportable and made-up, what is rational and what is fallacious, how can
we even discuss it. No, I think the idea that everyone's POV is equally
correct does a grave injustice to those who have worked hard and spent the
time it takes to grasp the issues. Would we say such a thing to a
mathematician? Do we describe miscalculations as just another valid POV?
Then you won't mind if I do your taxes or preform your next surgery? Just
because I don't believe in medical schools or fancy book lernin doesn't make
my surgical skill any less, right? I'm not sure what a scaple is and its not
entirely clear to me where the brain is located, but as long as I approch
the matter as a dream or a joke, and with a sense of Quality, I'm sure
you'll be fine.
Matt said:
And your last point here, "Pirsig's MOQ puts science, along with other
intellectual fields, at the top of the heap," is what I'm saying shouldn't
have been done, as above. Rather than an upward movement of all
disciplines, I should have wanted him to make a downward movement of
science.
DMB says:
You wanted him to make a downward movement of science? I smell another pet
theory that only confuses and distorts things, but I'll bite. What the heck
does that mean? Are you saying that the intellect is NOT an evolutionary
advance, but a regression? This would contradict nearly everything that is
known about cultural evolution, would it not? I mean, it seems that this is
not something Pirsig has done, he's only clarified the nature of what is
already widely aknowledged in intellectual history and a number of other
fields.
Matt said:
I can't claim moral highground on internet civility, as all will be aware
if you've been following Steve's and my exchange on poverty. But this
exchange between Glenn and Horse, Horse and John, John and DMB, John and
Platt, and all, it reminds me of high school, ...
DMB says:
I can't make any claims about civility either, but that's just a matter of
style and I think it is mostly irrelevant. The question is not how nicely we
put it, the question is whether or not it is correct. I find it hard to care
about anything else. What is said matters far more to me than how it is
said. Give it to me in a three act play or a dirty limerick. As long as it
makes a comprehensible and supportable point, I'm a happy philosopher. And
with that in mind, I suppose it could have been put in kinder terms, but I
don't think my comments or criticisms were childish in the least. If using
expressions like "Sheesh" make it seem so then I regret it and would ask you
to look past it. Please understand, however, that such expressions are meant
to be informal and even slangish, but meaningful nevertheless. And I think
its only reasonable to expect that the discussion of such important matters
might evoke some strong feelings. I think that's a good thing. Its not that
adults never get upset or angry, its that they know how to handle these
feelings and balance them out with other vaules and such. Passion. Let's
enjoy that. We don't want petty bickering to distract us from the issues at
hand, but let's not sedate ourselves in the name of civility either. I mean,
frank and direct is not the same as rude or insulting, even if it sometimes
stings the same. Ignore the insults, but address the frank and direct
challenges as if your reputation as a philosopher depended on it, because it
does.
Thanks for your time, assholes.
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 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 22:19:12 GMT