From: Charles Roghair (ctr@pacificpartssales.com)
Date: Mon Oct 18 2004 - 05:06:18 BST
Man, what took you so long?
On Oct 17, 2004, at 5:54 PM, David Buchanan wrote:
> Chuck and all thread followers:
>
> dmb says:
> After dozens and dozens of posts my head is swimming. And, as usual, I
> still
> have no idea what the faithful mean by "faith". It's become the mother
> of
> all weasel words. In any case, I think the clash between science and
> religion is resolved in the MOQ, even if its not easy to see at first.
> Wilber's superior levle of detail has been very helpful, not only in
> understanding the problem itself, but also in understanding what
> Pirsig is
> doing with it. My brain is fried from reading and working and I'm also
> fasting today, so please cut me some slack if I get a little goofy
> while
> trying to explain. Let me open with a quote from each of them...
>
> "Science supercedes old religious forms, not because what it says is
> more
> true in any absolute sense (whatever that is), but because what it
> says is
> more Dynamic." (LILA Chapter 17)
>
> "Mythology is true enough in its own world-spcae; its just that
> perspectival
> reason is 'more true'; more developed, more
> diffferentiated-and-integrated,
> and more sophisticated in its capactiy to disclose verifiable
> knowledge.
> Thus the higher truths of rationality pass judgement on the lower
> truths of
> mythology, and for the most part mythology simply does not survive
> those
> more sophisticated tests. Moses did not part the Red Sea, and Jesus
> was not
> born by a biological virgin. Those claims, in the light of higher
> reason,
> are indeed bogus. ...And if religion is to survive in a vialbe form
> in the
> modern world, it must be willing to jettison its bogus claims, just as
> narrow science must be willing to jettison its reductionistic
> imperialism."
> (KEN WILBER)
>
> dmb says"
> Science isn't more true, its more Dynamic. Mythology is true enough,
> its
> just that reason is more true. Surely one can see that these guys on
> the
> same wavelength. And I think they are pointing out a distinction that
> has
> been virtually ignored in the thread; the distinction between the
> third and
> fourth levels. We tend to associate religion with the former and
> science
> with the latter, but this is not exactly accurate. The distinction
> between
> the levels, between myth and reason, is complicated by the fact that
> Modernity not only represents a shift in levels, but it also includes
> the
> differentiation of "the big three", as Wilber calls them. The three
> domians
> of art, morals and science were relatively undiffentiated prior to the
> Modern era. For historical reasons, the process of differentiation
> went a
> little haywire, they threw the baby out with the bathwater and instead
> of
> becoming merely seperate, but equally valid modes of knowledge, they
> became
> hostile and alienated rivials. Science and religion became
> disassociated
> rather than just differentiated. Think of all the fuss Pirsig makes
> about
> AMORAL science and you can see they're working on the same problem. For
> historical reasons, we find ourselves with a spiritually empty
> scientific
> worldview and what passes for religion among the millions is ridiculous
> nonsense. The way out, says Wilber, is to re-integrate the big three
> (without regressing back to a pre-modern, undifferentiated state). And
> how
> is that done? Epistemological pluralism. And I think this is what
> Pirig is
> up to when he says "science isn't more true" and when he contructs the
> MOQ
> so that "many truths" can exist like paintings in a gallery. None of
> these
> statements undo the levels so that the test of intellectual truth
> remains
> tied to conventional standards like logic and such. It doesn't mean we
> get
> to believe what seems most pretty or whatever. And most directly
> related to
> the ideas of epistemological pluralism, is Pirsig's expanded
> empiricism. It
> goes further than traditional empiricism in accepting all kinds of
> experience as valid, not just sensory experience, but it certainly
> does not
> discount the value of empirical evidence to support our beliefs....
>
> Pirsig:
> "The MOQ does not rest on faith. In the MOQ faith is very low quality
> stuff,
> a willingness to believe falsehoods."
>
> "The selling out of intellectual truth to the social icons of organized
> relgion is seen by the MOQ as an evil act."
>
> In the MOQ "...the term "God" is completely dropped as a relic of an
> evil
> social suppression of intellectual and Dynamic freedom. The MOQ is not
> just
> atheistic in this regard. It is anti-theistic."
>
> Wilber:
> "Its no accident that wars fought in hole or part in the name of a
> particular mythic Deity have historically killed more human beings
> that any
> other intentional force on the planet. The enlightenment pointed out -
> quite
> rightly- that religious claims hiding from evidence are not the voice
> of God
> or Goddess, but merely the voice of men or women, who usually come
> with big
> guns and bigger egos. Power, not truth, drives claims that hide from
> evidence."
>
> dmb says:
> The faithful on this thread have been attacking a kind of science that
> Pirsig targets as well, but they seem to proceed as if didn't. His
> attack on
> SOM, on its exclusive truth, on its amoral materialism and his expanded
> empiricism all combine to put a great distance between himself and the
> more
> narrow version of empiricism associated with Modernity. Ken Wilber
> explains...
>
> "Moving from the profoundly important notion that all knowledge must be
> ultimately grounded in experience, many classical empiricists
> collaspsed
> this to the absurd notion that all knowledge must be reduced to, and
> derived
> from, colored patches. The myth of the given, the brain-dead flatland
> stare,
> the monological gaze, the modern nightmare: with this impoverished
> empiricism, we can have little sympathy.
> This dual meaning of 'empirisism' - very broad and very narrow - is
> actually
> reflected in the extensive confusion about the scientific method
> itself, and
> whether it must be 'empirical' or not. For the enduring strength of
> science
> - the reason it can indeed plop a person on the moon - is that it
> always
> attempts, as best it can, to rest its assertions on EVIDENCE and
> EXPERIENCE.
> But sensory experience is only one of severaal different but equally
> legitimate types of experience, which is presicely why mathematics -
> seen
> only inwardly, with the mind's eye - is still considered scientific
> (in
> fact, is usually considered extremely scientific!)."
>
> The advantage to the broader type of empiricism extends to religion as
> well
> as science and this is what I mean when I say that religion isn't
> NECESSARILY as social level thing, its just happens to be its dominant
> form.
> Epistemological empiricism does not allow for bogus assertions like
> the ones
> we associate with belief in the parting of the Red Sea or the
> ressurection,
> but it includes spiritual empiricism. It accepts religiious experience,
> mystical experience as a valid empircial experience. It is not sensory
> experience and it is not intellectual, mental experience either, but
> it is
> just as valid to the extent that it can be reported and verified by
> others
> who have also had the experience. We see this in the way Pirsig's
> expanded
> empiricism can include mystical experience and even insanity itself
> becomes
> a meaningful experience. He even tells us that he'd once planned to
> wrap his
> entire book around the peyote experience. These kinds of experiences
> can be
> reproduced with reasonable certaintly by those who know what they're
> doing,
> just like a good scientist can repeat another set of procedure to have
> his
> sensory experience. In this way, spiritual becomes empirical. Is
> precipitating a mystical experience more difficult than dropping an
> apple?
> You bet. And so much more worthwhile.
>
> Thanks,
> dmb
> P. S. for Horse and msh: I think its not just that religion that is
> deadly,
> although that's very true too, its that the social level, the giant,
> has
> always protected and projected itself by grinding up human bodies.
> This is
> why its so important NOT to allow governments to be socially
> controlled.
> This is why its so dangerous to allow a bible-thumper to lead a war
> against
> militant Islam. Pitting one race, one religion, one culture over
> another is
> just too dangerous in the atomic age. To the extent that we engage in a
> global war of rival forms of fasicistic fundamentalism, we're all
> doomed. In
> short, we can NOT let the stupid people carry the football anymore.
>
> One more from Ken Wilber:
> "And this is why rationality or reasonableness tends to be UNIVERSAL in
> character, and is highly integrative. If my reasons are going to be
> valid, I
> want to know that they make sense, or that they hold true, not just
> for me
> or my tribe or my isolated culture (however important those might also
> be).
> If science, for example, is going to be true, then we are not going to
> have
> a Hindu chemistry that is different from a German chemistry that is
> different from a Greek chemistry. There is simply chemistry, and its
> truth
> is not forced or coerced or ideologically imposed, but is freely open
> to any
> who wish to look into its reasons. This doesn't mean that we can't have
> cultural differences that make each society unique and special; it
> means
> that only rationality will allow these differences to exist side by
> side
> seeing them as different perspectives in a more universal space,
> something
> that cultural differences, left to their own conventional or
> sociocentric or
> ethnocentric devies, could never do. It is only rationality, in other
> words,
> that allows the beginning emergence of a truly global or planetary
> network,
> which, freed from any particular society, can allow all societies
> their own
> unique and special place."
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Mon Oct 18 2004 - 05:11:14 BST