From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 19:22:45 GMT
>Erin said:
>Where does Pirsig say science has found the Real Way towards Truth?
>I think Pirisg points out the art of science, pointing
>out the aspect of creating the truth not just finding
>the truth in facts about arts.
>If that is bringing science up or down probably depends
>on your opinion of art;-)
>
>Matt:
>One of the passages I'm thinking of is in ZMM Ch. 19 (beginning) when
>Pirsig discusses the choice between making Quality in the subject or
>object. "Because if Quality exists in the object, then you must explain
>just why scientific instruments are unable to detect it." This establishes
>the tight link between the object and objectivity and science. "On the
>other hand, if Quality is subjective, existing only in the observer, then
>this Quality that you make so much of is just a fancy name for whatever you
>like." This establishes the opposite link and the derision.
>
>Pirsig does point out the art of science, which is why there is an ego
>readjustment for scientists who thought that science was "above" art. What
>I'm suggesting is that people with residual scientism, while possibly
>enjoying art, look down on it as a cultural activity insofar as artists
>claim to be adding something to Knowledge or Truth. For them, science is
>the only activity that can lead to Knowledge and Truth, and for the most
>part, following Plato's lead, they think that that is the highest pursuit
>of all. What a philosopher like Pirsig wants to do is say, "Wait, wait,
>wait. Knowledge and Truth are the highest pursuits, but science does not
>have a monopoly on this." I'm arguing that the language Pirsig uses to
>open up the pursuit of Knowledge and Truth implies the expansion of the
>meaning of science. I'm further saying that I wish he hadn't done this,
>that it would have been better for him to say that their are different
>kinds of knowledge and that science provides knowledge of one kind and
>literary criticism of another.
I don't know Matt, I think I agree with what you
are saying Pirsig did do but don't quite clearly
see why its a bad thing. In a post a long time ago I talked about this
lecture I saw in college called "The Story of
Evolution as an Epic of Creativity". I think it is not only valid but helpful
to notice the story-like aspects of the evolution.
So I am not completely sold on seeing stories and science as separate yet.
I think I also viewed science as a narrow/specialized approach
rather then down or up approach. With this specialized approach you can go
into
great depth into one tiny area of knowledge.
I see the value in being specialized for scientists
but to me the great scientists were interested
in a a large scope in addition to depth.
Seeing the stories in science and the science in
stories doesn't seem so bad?
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 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 12 2003 - 19:15:25 GMT