From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 20:09:37 GMT
DMB, (with a note to Jonathan),
DMB said:
Does Pirsig define science this way? I don't see it. Does he put it down
with religion and other "cultural activites", whatever that is? No. Those
are third level things. You'd agree that the social science IS science? I'm
fine with the conventional notion that some of the sciences are "harder"
than others, but in the MOQ, natural science is NOT the only science. Its
not the only kind of intellectual level activity. In this sense, physics in
on the same level as history, philosophy, and the other humanities. I don't
recall Pirsig ever saying, or even implying, that science is the only way to
explain things. Yes, he elevates the intellect and science along with it,
but this is only to make a distinction between these various rational
explanations and social level traditions like god, guns and glory. He
elevates science above religion and ritual, but that's far different than
what you see.
Matt:
Pirsig doesn't exactly "define" science this way, but, as I said to Erin
just now, his language implies it much of the time. To use one of Platt's
favorite passages, "It is absolutely, scientifically moral for a doctor to
prefer the patient." (Ch 13, beginning) This is what leads to such things
as a "science of morals." Th division of activities between social and
intellectual levels I'll hold back from except religion, because I think
mis-spoke. Religion in Pirsig's eyes would be on the social level, but I
think its because its a social institution, emphasis on the institution
part. I think what Pirsig would want to say is that religious _worship_ is
not on the social level, more probably on the intellectual level (following
William James' "The Will to Believe"). So, yeah, as I've been trying to
say, Pirsig does allow for more "intellectual activities" (what I had
previously called "cultural activities"). I think he starts to broaden out
what science means, though, to make it look like all of these "intellectual
activities" have a scientific basis.
DMB said:
And is it not true that Pirsig insists on the provisionality of scientific
understanding, effectively saying "they haven't found the Real Way Towards
Truth"? You bet he does.
Matt:
The first part of that cut paragraph was how DMB thought that when I said,
"moving everything UP to the level of science" I meant everything as in
"every existing thing." This, though, is another example of DMB's poor
reading skills, because obviously we were talking about "intellectual
activites," like science.
On the provisionality of scientific understanding, sure, I'll grant this
point. He does, though I can't find it at the moment. Its the
"built-in-eraser" analogy if I'm correct. But his language, as I've noted
above, implies more that our intellectual activities can be thought as
scientific. And the inference between "provisionality" and "they haven't
found the Real Way Towards
Truth" doesn't follow because an activity can be provisional and still be
the Real Way. The Real Way just wants to be correct so it doesn't
accidentally proclaim "I've found Truth" prematurely.
On the rest of your post, first, I've looked up "incorrigible" in the
dictionary and it means, "that cannot be corrected, improved, or reformed,"
not "stupid," and it's the actual definition that I obviously meant. Its
possible you couldn't find the dictionary defintion because you spelt it
"incorrigable."
Secondly, I've never laughed so loud as when I read, "According to a
private e-mail that was sent on your behalf, you're a young philosophy
student and I'm supposed to go easy on you." My finace came in and asked
what was going on that was so funny. First, I wonder who, on my behalf,
would've asked for leniency. That's almost as disrespectful as you've been
to me this whole time. It's possible that someone out there is on your
side and feels bad for me and wrote that because you seem to be uncaring to
my obviously confused and youthful state, but I would scarcely call that
writing on my behalf. (Private note to whoever wrote it [if somebody
actually did]: if you actually are a friend, rather than a compatriate of
DMB's, I would appreciate an apology (in private). You just fuel DMB's ego
by belittling my talents. Unlike DMB, I'm a very understanding person and
wouldn't hold it over you. I just think it was a bit of bad taste
"stepping in" on my behalf and asking for leniency.) Second, I wonder when
you are actually going to get tough with me. All I've seen are easily
weathered insults. Platt had a lot more to say in attacking Rorty's
position and I miss my conversations with him. As soon as you "step up the
heat," let me know.
Lastly, rather than continue the incivility further and continue to not
heed my own advice, I'll add this on the exchange between DMB and Jonathan.
In response to my advice on just stopping the incivility, DMB said, "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." This is a
position that Pirsig holds from ZMM. Its the Truth that matters, nothing
else. Socrates and Plato thought this way, too. Civility was simply an
indication of manners and humanity. My Rortyan position doesn't follow in
this thought completely, however. Becauser "Truth" is granted to not exist
in any recognizable form, ignoring style becomes a bit more difficult when
the truth of sentences is no longer a matter of objectivity, but
solidarity. As I quoted Rorty a long time ago, "We must tempt the rising
generation with our words."
An instance of the importance of solidarity is the community a person is
addressing. I have no doubt that DMB's style would be completely and
whole-heartedly rejected by the entire academic community, yet DMB wants to
be taken seriously as a scholar. This Disscusion Group, in fact, wants to
be taken seriously. It won't be as long as the incivility lasts. I can
understand a certain amount of playfulness, because this isn't academia,
its the internet. But I think there's a big difference between playfulness
and rudeness. When people come on periodically and express their disgust,
imagine the number of people who don't say anything before leaving in
disgust. And we can only imagine how many academics have done this. More
than a few I'm guessing, because Pirsig isn't unknown to the academic
community. For instand, there's an anthropologist in Milwaukee, WI
(granted, not a large university, but an accredited one, nevertheless) who
takes Pirsig's critique of Boas seriously. Since Pirsig mentions this
website in the newest edition of ZMM, you can expect a lot of visitors of a
wide background, including scholars. My suggestion is to present yourself
well. This website isn't academia, and I'm not suggesting that it become
that. I think that we generally have a good mix of scholars and laypeople
that provides for a good forum and range of questions. Above all, this
group is for discussion of Pirsig, whatever the level of, shall I say,
"scholarly intensity." What I want to simply suggest is that we try not to
present ourselves in a way that disgusts people, thus limiting our
conversation parters.
Now, we can retain much of DMB's general thrust because, rather then some
antecedent "correctness," there can still be the substance of what was
written, rather than style. For instance, whether or not the writer had
anything good or interesting to say. So, looking past DMB's horrendous
style, most of what he said there is worthwhile. But I doubt DMB is going
to convince people of his viewpoint. Like Jonathan said:
"I don't deny that you occasionally produce something worthwhile. The
biggest irony is that I align strongly with your liberal socialist
outlook; in the "political compass" test, I found myself closer to you
than anyone else. That makes me all the more uncomfortable to see you
use rambling and flawed rationalizations to support the cause."
Its discomfort, but discomfort doesn't breed a lot of solidarity. The
emphasis on solidarity rather than something called objectivity is the
emphasis on being civilized people, on being nice to each other, on being,
dare I say, Quality people. Pirsig says that style is a veneer put on
things to make them acceptable, which also makes them phony. (ZMM, Ch. 25,
beginning) Well, then if being nice to people is mere "style" for a
person, then I guess that person's being phony to be nice. The shift to
Quality, I would suggest, is the shift to _actually_ being nice to people,
rather than faking it. Rather than being nice to people's faces, you are a
nice person. Rather than being good to people because it the civilized
thing to do, you are a good person. That's Quailty.
Matt
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 - 20:05:13 GMT