From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sat May 24 2003 - 21:50:09 BST
Hello David,
When I decided to write that 'mythology of science' post, it was in response to some comments (from
you and others) that science didn't operate within a mythology. I think it does, and I sketched out
that 'drama of salvation' to try and indicate what I think that mythology is. (I think it's
culturally specific, that is, science can operate within different mythologies. I was just trying to
describe the one that it has historically operated in in the West). You haven't really commented on
whether you still think that science (somehow) operates outside of a mythology, other than to
confirm that as a level 4 discipline it is dependent on level 3 - but what is the level 3?
Similarly, as I said before, I don't recognise my views in what you seem to be criticising. In
particular, my 'comments' on your last post weren't directly dealing with the main thrust of your
argument, because I was (trying to) follow the principle of 'if the hat doesn't fit, don't wear it'.
Still, I'll make a few more comments here, for what they're worth.
: dmb says:
: You're missing the point entirely. The truth of a myth does NOT depend on
: its basis in historical fact because the events depicted are symbolic.
Well, we could have a whole long thread about that (Christianity denies it for a start...) but that
horse got thrashed a long time ago. So let's get a bit more specific. You wrote on May 18:
"History is not magically transformed into mythology just because we arrange historical data in
narrative form." and
"couching well documented and widely known historical changes in such religious terms does not
change it into myth."
and then later that day
"the use of such imagery in historical narratives does not erase the distinction between myth and
history or myth and science"
"The most basic distinction between myth and history is revealed by the non-symbolic nature of
historical narrative." [as an aside: how to reconcile this use of 'symbol' as the sign of level 3
with Pirsig's idea that 'symbol' is the sign of level 4? change of meaning, clearly.]
So, if I understand you correctly, what you are objecting to is my use of the 'light/darkness'
imagery in my telling of the historical story?
I would be grateful if you could spell out precisely why. After all, I didn't come up with the
language of 'Enlightenment' to describe 18th Century intellectual history.... It would probably help
if you set out precisely how you view the distinction between myth and history (and throw in legend
and fable while you're at it <wink>). At what point do you do without interpretation?
: Obviously, history is different and DOES depend on actual, literal events.
What is an 'actual, literal event' and how do you determine it and establish the proper description?
(Objectively?!?!?!?)
: The notion that there might some diputes about when the Dark Ages begin or
: end makes for an interesting historical debate, but is completely irrelevant
: to the distinction between myth and history, between Pirsig's social and
: intellectual levels. (Historians refer to the Dark Age as such not because
: of the rise of religion or Christianity, but because of the loss of the
: classical Greco-Roman world. The writing of the Greeks and Romans were all
: but lost to Western Europe for centuries and were kept by Irish and Arab
: scholars until the Renaissance.)
Well.... if one group says that the Dark Ages carried on for 700 years more than another group, is
that still in the realm of historical debate - or is there something else going on? As Wittgenstein
puts it, "For a mistake, that's too big." (BTW lots of Greek writings were first reintroduced in the
eleventh and twelfth centuries. That's how Aquinas got going. And that's why I don't think they were
'dark' - my sense of 'dark' is completely historically orthodox...).
: dmb says:
: Non sequitur? You really don't see how that adds up? Hmmmm. OK, I'll try to
: "unpack" it a bit. Your position on this and many related issues is
: consistent.
Thanks! I'm glad you noticed!
: In different ways, you say there is no real difference between
: the social and intellectual levels.
Not true. I dispute that 'intellect' is the criterion for the fourth level (on its own). I think
that the fourth level is constructed differently, but I think there is a very real (discrete)
difference between level 3 and 4. I think that 'intellect', ie Pirsig's 'manipulation of symbols in
the brain that stand for patterns of experience' happens at both level 3 and level 4, and is
therefore not a good guide to the difference between the levels.
: You say religion and science are really
: just two rival mythologies.
I think that the cultural supports for science in our culture are, effectively, pseudo-religious and
mythological, yes.
: The shrub/tree analogy suggests that intellect
: values are really just a bigger version of the social level's values.
Which is why I don't think intellect defines level 4. I don't see the link between virtue and law as
equivalent to shrub/tree, for example, so that is one way in which I think it possible to improve on
Pirsig's formulation.
: : dmb continues:
: And now you know where the phrase "right and left pockets" comes from too.
Yes, although I still don't agree with it. You seem to equate my view with SOM. I don't think it is
the same, that's why I don't recognise my views in what you seem to be criticising.
: The MOQ replaces SOM's misconception about the nature of society and
: intellect and thereby makes the two far more distinct than you or SOM.
That is the claim, but for various reasons I don't think the MoQ succeeds. That's why I think the
MoQ needs to reconceive level 4 in order to make sense. That's why I've had a go at my own
reformulation, around the idea of 'eudaimonia' as what best characterises level 4 - as Wim has been
grilling me on!
Cheers
Sam
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 : Sat May 24 2003 - 21:49:17 BST