From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Apr 06 2003 - 19:26:32 BST
Hey Sam and all,
Thanks for the detailed responses. I've been piecing my replies
together in my spare time over the last few days (please forgive me if they
feel a bit 'disjointed' in places, but I'm spread pretty thin timewise right
now). If anything here has been answered by one of your more recent posts,
please forgive me. Moreover, for anyone else to whom I owe a reply (Scott
R, Platt, Johnny, etc?), once again I appeal to your patience.
SAM
> > Like you said: "...it's the attempt to
> > make our judgments less dependent on personal preference." LESS
dependent,
> > not INdependent. More neutral (or less biased), not totally neutral.
>
> Agreed. The idea of 'total neutrality' is a blind alley.
RICK
Nice. I love those agreements :-)
SAM
> I think the difference is to do with the 'intended object', ie what is
> studied. Science is simply the discipline of apatheia applied to a
> particular form of knowledge - which is ultimately trivial, IMHO.
RICK
On reading this, the first thing I wondered was if the only difference
between 'apatheia' and 'science' is that they study different objects then
how can one be trivial and the other not trivial? It must have something to
do with the nature of the 'object' being studied. That is, the 'object' of
apatheia must somehow lend itself better to 'objective' study than the
'objects' of science do. But in your last post you implied that the
'object' of apatheia was god (or DQ). The 'objects' of science (i think we
agreed) are static patterns. This would all add up to saying that god (or
DQ) is better suited for objective study than static patterns. But that
seems backwards to me. Moreover, later in the post you wrote "Science is
tremendously powerful in certain restricted areas." Is science "trivial"
even in the areas in which it is "tremendously powerful"? How can something
'tremendously powerful' be considered 'trivial'?
SAM
I would
> argue that apatheia *includes* science, and that therefore, theology is
the
> more fundamental or far-reaching intellectual framework.
RICK
I don't know Sam. Even granting everything you say about it, it sounds to
me like apatheia, at most, *resembles* science, maybe in the way a child
resembles an adult.
> > RICK (from last time)
> > Even if that's true (which I'm not prepared to say it is) then I would
> > suggest that the outgrowth has outgrown its source.
SAM
> As a matter of principle, I have no disagreement that such a thing is
> possible. As a matter of fact, I don't think that it has happened.
RICK
Perhaps objectivity was born of apatheia to study DQ, but when it was
realized what phenomenal things could be achieved by applying objectivity to
the study of static patterns, the child grew up.
SAM
> I don't see it as any part of my brief to defend fundamentalism - quite
the
> opposite. As for the medieval papacy, I view it as, by and large, a
corrupt
> (and un-Christian) institution.
RICK
Fair enough. I'll not ask you to defend it again. However, I would ask you
to consider the statistics recently posted by DMB in this thread. I think
the fundamentalist view of Christianity is far more widespread than you like
to admit (perhaps because you're so tired of having to separate yourself
from them you've decided to ignore them instead?).
SAM
> DQ is just a metaphor for an aspect of God, I would say.
RICK
In what ways is God 'broader' than DQ? Do you see what I'm asking? If DQ is
one aspect of God, what are some of the other aspects? Moreover, how would
you respond to this...
CAMPBELL
It seems quite incongruous to use the name 'God' to signify THAT which we
experience immediately, before thought has sundered it into a world of
things. This may be what Hindus mean by 'Brahmin' and Buddhists by 'Tathata'
(that-ness), but it is certainly not what the majority of thoughtful
Christians have understood as God the Father.
RICK
'that which we experience immediately' sounds very much how Pirsig describes
DQ.
SAM
I don't think that
> all static patterns should be renounced, I just think that their
provisional
> nature should be recognised (and affirmed).
RICK
Recognized, affirmed, and agreed.
> > RICK
> Science and logic may have nothing to say how we should live, but they
> are indispensable in weighing the value of *shoulds* offered by those who
do
> claim to know how we should live. Just think how much better a place
the
> > world would be if just one suicide bomber asked someone to show him some
> > evidence that there are 10 virgins waiting for him in heaven after the
> bomb
> > goes off.
SAM
> Science has nothing to say about 'shoulds'.
RICK
I didn't mean 'shoulds' like that (as in 'normative judgments about
behavior'). I meant in the sense of what we 'should believe', about which
science says plenty. Should we believe that Pons and Fleischmann discovered
'cold fusion'? Science would say no, because no evidence supports the
assertion. Should we believe that if you fly a plane into the side of a
crowded skyscraper you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven? Science
would say no, because no evidence supports the assertion.
SAM
Do you really think a suicide
> bomber would be put off by a training in science? Why then were most of
the
> 9/11 leaders people with scientific degrees?
RICK
No. I'm saying they might have been put off if they were less willing to
accept some arbitrary assertions of fact about the afterlife on faith and
without evidence.
SAM
Doesn't that correspondence
> make your antennae twitch that there is something quite important being
> missed by science?
RICK
It almost sounds as if you're blaming 9/11 on science rather than religious
fundamentalism. Do you think that's really a tenable position? What
percentage of suicide bombers have been religious extremists? Or more to
the point, what percentage of suicide bombers haven't been religious
extremists? Now, what percentage of scientists are suicide bombers?
> > SAM
> > > My view is that the objective stance is simply a tool - a useful
> > instrument
> > > for use in particular cases, and something which can enable us to
> develop
> > > better sources of information -
> >
> > RICK
> > That is my view as well.
SAM
> Wonderful - that, plus the agreement on what emotions are makes me think
> that there is huge scope for agreement, once we've thrashed things
through.
RICK
I see agreement in many areas of our thoughts (though some differences
obviously as well). I wonder how deep the differences really run.
> > SAM
> > ...but to discern the answers to our most
> > > fundamental and most interesting questions we need to re-engage our
> > > emotions, ie our discernment of value. As is built into the very
> > groundwork
> > > of the MoQ.
> >
> > RICK
> > Why do social-level emotions need to included in questions of
metaphysics?
> > Where do you read that in the MoQ?
SAM
> Where did 'social-level' come from?
RICK
I thought that's what you meant when you called objectivity "an attempt to
make our judgments less dependent on personal preference...", "...an
emotional distancing which is geared around getting a clearer view of the
matter at hand..." The 'emotions' that objectivity seeks to strip away are
surely (in MoQ parlance) social patterns, no? Which means that the
'emotions' that must be re-engaged in answering 'our most fundamental and
interesting questions' must also be social patterns, no?
SAM
> A few disparate comments. 'scientia' is not 'sapientia', ie knowledge is
not
> wisdom.
RICK
Agreed. It has always been my belief that the difference between knowledge
and wisdom is that wisdom cares... How does that sound to you?
SAM
Faith is a virtue, like courage, not a belief system or a set of
> propositions.
RICK
According to this, it's both or either...
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY
FAITH - Noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of
a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or
material evidence. See synonyms at belief. , trust. 3. Loyalty to a person
or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith
Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a
trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the
Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.
RICK
A virtue defined as *secure belief* in God? What kind of virtue is that?
Sounds like knowledge assumed without evidence to me. How come it's not
virtuous to believe in other things without evidence (like Leprechauns and
Goblins)?
SAM
Our fundamental intellectual stance is not a matter of
> rational enquiry.
RICK
Then what do consider to be the nature of metaphysics? What is LILA?
take care,
rick
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 Apr 06 2003 - 19:26:50 BST