From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 22:30:53 BST
Steve, Sam and all MOQers:
Sam said:
When I decided to write that 'mythology of science' post, it was in response
to some comments 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. ... 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?
dmb says:
Let's try a completely different approach. This is one of those times when
I'm not sure exactly how to articulate the things I have in mind so I'll ask
for some poetic license and a couple yards of slack. I'll try to sketch out
a big picture of what the relationship between myth and science is really
like in the actual world. Its seems to me so deep and complex that I can
hardly grasp it, and yet I find it utterly fascinating. This won't exactly
dispute Sam's take on a point by point basis. Our differences on this topic
are far too enormous for that kind of method to be anything but frustrating
and wildly inefficient. This won't exactly take on Steve's defense of the
Spockish version of the 4th level either, but I certainly have that in mind
too.
Remember the part where Pirsig tells us about a cartoon octopus nightmare?
It was not literally true, but dynamically, emotionally and psychologically
it was true. It was about the young intellectual's stuggle to transcend
social values, to escape the clutches of the giant. This is the kind of
dream a young intellectual will have, but social level people, and there are
lots more of them, have a different kind of nightmare. I won't go into
detail about the connection between dreams and myths, but let me assert
their intimate connection with a single pithy phrase; myths are public
dreams and dreams are private myths. (I forget if it was Campbell or Jung
who said that.) With this in mind, I think we can see that there is not so
much a mythology of science as a mythology ABOUT science. And what I see in
our culture is very far away from the depiction of scientists or science as
the saviours of the world. Quite the opposite. Ever since Mary Shelly's
Frankenstein, the first science-fiction novel, our culture has depicted the
scientists as an insane ego-maniac bent on playing god or otherwise
disrupting the natural order of things. Every James Bond villain is some
kind of evil "genius" bent on controlling the world. We love our superheros
like Superman and Spiderman not only because they exemplify and uphold
social values, but even more so because they capture or kill the bad guy,
who is usually an evil "genius bent on taking over the world. The whole
UFO/alien abduction thing expresses this same anxiety about science and
technology. Its clear that there no physical evidence that would support the
actual and literal existence of these aliens, but don't laugh yet. I think
we have to take the reports seriously, as genuine and very real, but only as
a psychological event. We see that these reports are loaded with all kinds
of mythic content, up to and including being selected by a higher being for
a grand purpose, a virgin birth that will give rise to a new kind of
humanity and other pronounced religious themes. But the overriding theme in
this emerging myth is a fear and anxiety about the technological, scientic
and intellectual superiority of these other worldly creatures. Naturally, it
is imained that they want to take over the world every bit as much as those
regular old human evil genius guys. My point? I'm saying that our
contemorary mythology has a profound relationship with science, but it is
far from positive, let alone as savior of the world. Our modern myths depict
science as something to be feared, hunted and destroyed. It is the giant's
nightmare. It is the hurricane of the 20th century on a subconscious level.
It is the social level's immune system kicking in to try to maintain
supremacy. Its true from the giant's perspective. It expresses the anxiety
that comes from a loss in rank as the 4th level begins to take over as
leader. And even though Gene Roddenberry (the show's creator) loved science,
we still find Spock on board, who is at once the only purely rational
creature and the only alien. Its the same song with the volume turned down.
Its more Plato than Shelly, but we can still see Spock as a watered down
version of the monster in the giant's nightmare.
What Pirsig trys so hard to tell us in ZAMM is that we ought not feel
alienated by technology or science. In SODV he tells us that scientists are
not passionless or cold, but creative artists. And the MOQ tells us exactly
why we should honor and embrace the intellect as a higher form of morals and
values.
Does that make sense?
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 Jun 01 2003 - 22:30:43 BST