From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Nov 12 2004 - 16:35:42 GMT
Hi Rich and all,
rich said:
I can see where you are both coming from, but isn't putting subjects
like evolution and Intelligent Design in seperate categories
(science, metaphysics, religion) part and parcel of the
subject/object stratification that leads to psichic alienation?
msh says:
Well, maybe. I know my OWN sense of psychic alienation is not due to
the fact that Evolution is studied separately from Intelligent
Design.
BTW, ID is just a new name for an old argument for the existence of
God. The ID version has some highly questionable probability
calculations, but the theory itself hasn't overcome David Hume's
original arguments against it, as far as I can determine. FWIW, I'm
writing a longer piece on this, and hope to post it tonight.
Anyway, I'm not sure compartmentalization in education is a problem.
What is the alternative, one course called "The Study of
Everything"? That would be one hell of a syllabus. On the other
hand, I agree with you that science studies would be greatly enhanced
if there were courses to integrate the morality of the MOQ into
scientific thinking.
rich said:
Pirsig is trying to find ways of bridging science and religion
through a broader metaphysics that puts Quality as its core and
presents the view that there is more than one truth. The MoQ has no
quarrel with Darwinian and teleological explanations of evolution. If
there is only one objective reality, there can be only one truth, but
Pirsig is saying otherwise.
msh says:
I agree with you here, though I believe there is an opening for
confusion. Here's the quote that many on this list refer to when
they claim Pirsig has no problem with religious teleologies:
"Natural selection is Dynamic Quality at work. There is no quarrel
whatsoever between the Metaphysics of Quality and the Darwinian
Theory of Evolution. Neither is there a quarrel between the
Metaphysics of Quality and the 'teleological' theories which insist
that life has some purpose. What the Metaphysics of Quality has done
is unite these opposed doctrines within a larger metaphysical
structure that accommodates both of them without contradiction."
(LILA-11).
I believe it is wrong to isolate this passage from the preceding
paragraphs, then use it to claim that the MOQ has no problem with
ANY teleological theory. It's clear, to me anyway, that what he is
saying is that the MOQ itself is BOTH evolutionary and teleological:
The "purpose" of life is to "get better" by making good decisions in
response to DQ. This does not mean that the MOQ accomodates just any
old teleology, such as one that claims that the purpose of life is to
do God's work and be rewarded with eternal bliss in Heaven.
Any and all thoughts will be appreciated.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
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 : Fri Nov 12 2004 - 16:57:38 GMT