From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Jan 13 2003 - 00:32:30 GMT
Matt and all:
I've changed the thread name because we are not discussing "linear
causality" anymore.
Matt said:
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 says:
Briefly, I think we generally agree about religion. It CAN be intellectual,
as in the case of a theology student or a professor of comparative
religions, but for the most part it is social level institution and appeals
to us on that level. On the matter of Pirsig's view toward science, morals
and all that, it was Ken Wilber who helped me see what this is all about. As
I understand it, Wilber and Pirsig both address the same problems and come
up with very similar solutions. What Pirsig calls SOM, for example, is
called "flatland" in Wilber's books. But more to the point, Wilber describes
the problem as an evolutionary glitch. He says that the big three; science,
art and morals were integrated into a whole worldview in previous ages, but
that the enlightenment represented a differentiation of these three. And
this is a good thing insofar as each of these domians were allowed more
freedom to take off and do more specialized work, except that it has now
gone to far past mere distinction and has become disassociated. They've
grown so far apart in modern times that they now seem unrealted and even
hostile to each other. What Pirsig and Wilber both assert, each in their own
way, is that we need to re-integrate science, morals and art. The
distinctions remain so that something like "the science of morals" would
still seem fairly absurd, but nobody doubt that there is such a thing as a
rational ethical system or that dishonest scientists are bad scientists. I
think this is why Pirsig insists that science is only unconcerned with a
certain kind of morals, namely third level social codes as one might find in
the churches. I think Pirsig is saying that the seperation between morals
and science was never meant to pit one against the other, but to free them
both. I hope this makes sense even to those who have not read Wilber.
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.
DMB says:
If I were a bigger man, I'd just let it go. But I have to say that my
reading comprehension skills have been tested and I was the first in my
class. I forget now, but it was 97% or 98% comprehension. And what you were
trying to say was far from obvious to me. I find myself reading your
sentences over and over and still can't make sense of it. You tend to use
special terms and jargon that were defined long ago in some other threads
and consequently much of what you say is lost on me.
Matt said:
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.
DMB says:
Right. The pencil is mightier than the pen. However, I think the idea that
at some point we'd abandon the idea of provisionality and proclaim the real
truth is an unfair revision of Pirsig's position. I mean, he never said that
it was too early to proclaim the truth or anything like that. I'm having
trouble understanding the sentence with the implication. "Our intellectual
activities can be thought as scientific"? Hmmm. Let me try this. Wouldn't
you agree that science is a subset of intellectual activites? It is one of
many intellectual pursuits, right? So wouldn't we say that all science is an
intellectual thing, but not everything intellectual is science?
Matt said:
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."
DMB says:
In spite of the spelling error, I know what the word means. If an
incorrigible person is incapable of being corrected, improved or reformed, I
think its not too much of a stretch to say that person is stupid. In common
usage, the word is a euphemism for a stupid or persistently wicked person.
BUT I would raise the original issue again because you did not address it at
all. Do you think it is fair or correct to use the word "incorrigible" in
place of "sincere"? I certainly don't. If your answer is yes, I'll be
interested to see how these two words are interchangable, synonymous or even
remotely related.
Matt said:
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.
DMB says:
Had a good laugh about that, did you? That makes two of us. I've been
disrespectful? I thought I was heaping attention upon you and even some a
little praise. Could you be more specific. Sure, I've raise lots of
objections and have been critical of some assertions, but that's not
disrespect. That's just how discussions and debates are supposed to work,
no? Isn't that why we're here? Wonder when I'm gonna get tough with you?
Turn up the heat? Huh? I guess I could if you like. Shall I write the
meanest post in the world, something that makes Struan look like a pussycat
by comparison? Oh, that would be great fun - and nobody would ever talk to
me again. I know, you're not serious about that.
Matt said: .......................Because "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.
DMB says:
Truth does not exist and the test of truth is solidarity? Are you saying
that the need for evidence has been replaced in favor of majority opinion or
the general consensus? Perhaps your use of "solidarity" is one of those
special terms that is only related to the common usage?
Matt said:
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.
DMB says:
Oh, really? Thanks. I wondered what I wanted. Now its all clear to me.
;-)C'mon, let's not take ourselves so seriously. This is just a book
discussion group, for goodness sake. And don't you think I'd alter my style
if I were to become an academic professional? Sure I would. My posts simply
aren't intended for the academic community, so this bit of criticism seems
pretty strange. I could say that your style would be "completely and
whole-heartedly rejected" by the publishers of Sunset Magazine, but what
would be the point? It seems to me that the relevant question is whether or
not my posts work here, where they are supposed to be.
Matt said:
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.
DMB says:
Horrendous style? Please be specific. I'm not going to convince anyone? But
isn't that true of everyone here? Don't you repeatedly insist that people
are basically incorrigible and have "final vocabularies". Or are you saying
that the ideas I post are "good, interesting and worthwhile, but that I'm
just too "disgusting" to be persuasive? Wow. Talk about ad hominem attacks!
Matt said:
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.
DMB says:
I think I see what you're saying. You've shifted the distinction between
style and content to a distinction between genuinely nice and phony nice.
But for anyone who cares to look at the opening of chapter 25 I think it'll
be clear that Pirsig is talking about the use of style to cover up the
underlying lack of quality, which is phony and only makes the hidden
ugliness and dullness even worse. And this is exactly what I was getting at
with the original distinction between style and content. If the content is
good, there is no need to pretty it up with phony stylizations. I guess
that's what you're getting at. You're saying that it has to have this
underlying quality in the first place and that's what you mean by insisting
that we be good and nice for genuine reasons rather than for "external" or
social reasons. Is that it? In any case, I'd simply say that being nice is a
social level value. Its a part of that "system of sentiments" that bind
communities. Its a good thing, but has little to do with intellectual
pursuits or philosophical debates. Its not an intellectual virtue. On the
contrary, this world moves forward only by those who are willing to make
people feel uncomfortable. John Brown was a dangerous man, many died in the
civil war, the Brujo was not a miss manners' top ten list and "the great
author" seemed to piss off Rigel just about every time they spoke. In this
situation, in this kind of forum, I'd even go so far as to say that niceness
can be an impediment. I think this kind of debate demands energy, sincereity
and honesty and lots of other values that are drawn from the social level,
but niceness isn't one of them. Things likd deference, authority, hierarchy
and a whole host of other social level values would only serve as a monkey
wrench in the works. Besides all that, don't you just think nice guys are
boring? Doesn't fake niceness and false humility just turn your stomache?
That's how it hits me. I think THAT is far more disgusting than any good
idea, expressed in any style whether its funny or brutal. Pulling punches is
a kind of condescension and as such it seems cruel in a much deeper way. Let
us respect each other's strength and fortitude enought to be brave about our
words and assertions. Let's assume everyone here is an adult and is
perfectly capable of handling some criticism and some intellectual
challenges. Are we not here to put our ideas on the table for everyone to
see?
Thanks,
DMB
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 : Mon Jan 13 2003 - 00:40:59 GMT