Re: MD The mythology of science

From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 12:38:36 BST

  • Next message: Elizaphanian: "Re: MD The Eudaimonic MoQ"

    Hi David,

    I don't really recognise my views in what you seem to be criticising. But a few comments on what you
    wrote.

    : dmb says:
    : I have no doubt.... But seriously, my point was only that the use of such imagery
    : in historical narratives does not erase the distinction between myth and
    : history or myth and science. I mean, you're not really DENYING that Europe's
    : Dark Age is an actual literal historical event, are you?

    The difference between my view and that embodied in what I styled the 'mythology of science' lies in
    the dating of the Dark Ages in Latin speaking Europe. (There were no Dark Ages in the Eastern half).
    I would date them as being between 600 and 900. The mythology of science stretches them to,
    effectively, 1600 or so (ie Galileo). That only works if you equate religion with darkness - which
    is precisely what I object to.

    : You're not denying
    : the events we call the enlightenment the scientific revolution or historical
    : change in general, are you?

    Didn't think I was. I'm contesting an interpretation of events.

    : The most basic distinction between myth and
    : history is revealed by the non-symbolic nature of historical narrative.

    Right. Isn't this the 'myth of objectivity' which Pirsig deconstructs?

    : Would I be correct to think this assertion goes along with, at least
    : roughly, what you called "the meta-narrative of rational primacy"? That
    : looks like essentially the same argument in a different form, no? And this
    : also goes along with your preference for the bush/tree analogy for the
    : social/intellectual distinction, no? All of which adds up to the SOM view,
    : that the difference is only like what's in the left and right hand pockets,
    : which is much less of a distinction than Pirsig makes, no?

    I'm with you until your last sentence, which seems like a non sequitur. Feel free to expand on why
    it follows from the earlier comments (where you are correct).

    Sam

    The lover of myth is in a sense the lover of wisdom, for myth is composed of wonders. Aristotle

    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 May 19 2003 - 12:42:43 BST