From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 16:11:53 BST
[Platt]
Scientific methodology is hailed by Peirce as the one right way to think.
Pirsig says the methodology has a huge defect -- no provision for morals.
[Arlo]
Peirce was, indeed, writing within a SOM paradigm. But Pirsig's solution was not
to abolish "scientific methodology", but to expand it to provide for morality.
This is why Intellect is the highest rung on Pirsig's static MOQ ladder.
If we abolish "scientific methodology" outright, what other means of fixing our
beliefs would you suggest? You've seemed to suggest in the past that "until the
MOQ is generally accepted" we cling to select pieces of the Judeo-Christian
code. Does this mean you prefer "authority" as the interim basis for fixing of
morals?
You seem to want critical thinking to be somehow ipso facto SOMist, so that you
can deny its relevance, but Pirsig engaged in a whole lot of critical thinking
in ZMM and Lila. And his "reason" was hardly SOMist. My conclusion, it's not
the "critical thinking", its the mindset of the person doing it.
Arlo
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 : Tue Oct 18 2005 - 16:23:23 BST