From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Aug 29 2004 - 19:32:41 BST
Ian and all interested MOQers:
Ian Glendinning said:
BTW you know already that I use "scare quotes" to signify words that "I
know" I'm using in a special way, not necessarily understood the same way
(yet) by my reader. Yes ?
dmb replies:
No. You can't expect the reader to know, for example, that PC refers to the
dominant paradigm without saying so. If that's what you mean, you really
should just call it that. Its so much more clear and simple when we all
properly use the language. BTW, what does the phrase "scare quotes" mean?
Ian continued:
Yes I guess I am using words a little out of the boxes in which they may
have become pigeon-holed. I do that not to be difficult (I really would like
people like you to understand me), but because often the pigeon-holes have
been framed by the "prevailing paradigm", and their original intent /
metaphor has been lost. I'm not playing King Cnut, holding back the tide of
etymology (though again that was never Cnut's objective either). What I am
doing is demonstrating that the tide of "scientific political correctness"
is making it very difficult to use words in the spirit in which they were
originally intended. I've never felt hide-bound by the (democratically
conventional) definitions of a million dictionaries. "Conventionally
speaking" is the problem for me, if it is "the convention" that is "wrong".
Bear with me. (I did make the same point about dictionaries in another
thread - on the word "petard".)
dmb replies:
Never felt bound by dictionaries? For one who wishes to participate in a
discussion group, this is a serious problem. How do you expect to make sense
to anyone? No, this position is completely untenable. It does no good to
abandon conventional definitions, facts or logic even if the goal is to
criticize and scrutinize such conventions. It disables our ability to see
beyond convention. As a matter of fact, Pirsig disputes conventional wisdom
and the dominant paradigm on every other page without the burden of this
self-imposed paralysis. The MOQ doesn't abandon logic or the english
language and neither should we.
DMB had complained:
Get with the program / notice the name of the thread. We're talking about
the relative merits of various news organizations, where facts and logic,
conventionally speaking, mean everything.
Ian replied:
This is the problem I'm addressing, in a nutshell. I could just leave it at
that, or I could get all post-modern and deconstruct it, one concept at a
time. As usual, I'll fall between stools.
"Conventionally speaking", yes, but you cannot seriously believe Fox News
(or the BBC, or the House of Representatives, or the Oval Office for that
matter) actually deals in facts and logic, at least not in any truth /
quality sense ?
dmb says:
It seems that you confuse politicians and journalists with philosophers and
scientists, or imagine everyone else does. Each of these are judged by
different standards and it doesn't help to pretend they are interchangale in
any way. I mean, nobody expects politicians to be scientists, the problem is
when we have politicians who put forward policies that defy or ignore
scientific findings. So on some level, yes, we should expect politicians and
journalists to deal in facts and logic. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction,
for example, were said to exist in great numbers and to pose a threat to the
United States. Either that is true or its not. Its a matter of fact. Science
and philosophy need not have anything to do with it. The existence of these
weapons can be varified or not. Since political decisions were made and
thousands have subsequently died, lost limbs and been tortured based the the
existence of these weapons, facts become a matter of life and death. In that
context, I think it is outrageously immoral to dismiss the importance of
these issues. Even a die-hard postmodern deconstructionist has to feel
something when people die for a lie, don't they?
Ian said:
Anyway, here goes ... The "prevaling paradigm" is indeed to have facts and
logic underly the truth of any story. That's scientific, right, its gotta be
true - Yes ? It's not the facts an logic that are (necessarily) wrong,
that's only a small part of the argument. It's the prevailing paradigm
that's wrong in expecting "scientific facts and logic" to tell some kind of
meaningful truth in what is a highly non-scientific situation (eg morality
and truth around the reasoning of going to war, or justifying torture at Abu
Graib, or the quality of a national helthcare service, or whatever -
sceintific logic ? - do me a favour)
dmb replies:
Again, you're mixing of science and politics is confusing the issue. I don't
think anyone here is so utterly captivated by the scientific paradigm that
they expect the political issues arounds our spys or torturers to be
resolved by science or anything like that. And the problem with the dominant
paradigm, as it is identified by guys like Pirsig and Wilber, is NOT that it
relies on facts or logic. The scientific method comes with an eraser, as
Pirsig points out, and is inherently open to change, to new theories and new
worldviews. I mean, the idea that facts and logic are some kind of poison or
some form of oppression, strikes me as a radically wrong diagnosis of the
problem with the dominant paradigm. (I'm happy to discuss this further now
that I know you're not talking about worldviews and not the euphemisms of
diversity advocates. Huge difference, you know.)
Ian explained:
Seriously, I do mean pretty much "dominant paradigm", but in a VERY
dominant - all prevailing - way. The "scientific" paradigm (meme) dominates
even in domains where scientific facts and logic represent only a tiny
proportion of the argument. This becomes "political correctness" because,
like the "forbidden" words in the narrow definition you supply, I am almost
forbidden to argue unless I agree to use the scientific euphemisms of "facts
and logic". By rejecting these, I am outcast from the argument, eg by you
DMB. (This is my Catch-22 BTW - how can I argue my case in your space, if I
don't agree to the dictionary definitions (rules) in your space. Yossarian
all over.) If I reject "scientific facts and logic", I'm left with no tools
with which to argue - in that space.
dmb replies:
An outcast who is almost forbidden to argue? Again, I think this is a
self-imposed exile. I honestly see no barriers to criticizing the scientific
worldview. Pirsig's MOQ is all about exactly that and we discuss it using
facts, logic and conventional language every single day of the week. Sorry,
but posing as the misunderstood genuis doesn't work in a space where such
contrarians are loved and celebrated as a force of nature.
I think its important to remember that Intellect is the highest level of
static reality in Pirsig's MOQ, despite his criticisms of SOM. Pirsig's aim
is not to discredit the intellect itself, but a particular set of
metaphysical assumptions. Scientific data is not ignored or abandoned in the
MOQ, its only viewed differently. It seems you've done something worse than
throw the baby out with the bath water, Ian. You've thrown out the baby and
kept the bathwater. It is the ammorality and the paralysis of SOM that
Pirsig objects to most of all, and it seems to be the only things you've
retained.
Thanks,
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 Aug 29 2004 - 19:34:30 BST