RE: MD The mythology of science

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 04:15:57 BST

  • Next message: Destination Quality: "Re: MD The Transformation of Love"

    Sam said to dmb:
    I've just realised something. You perceive intellect to be embattled and
    struggling to be accepted; I see it as entrenched and oppressive. That
    probably has a lot to do with our different life experiences (don't know
    much about yours, but mine has had a lot of exposure to academia). That must
    underlie our different understandings to a large extent.

    dmb replies:
    We can't help but look at the world through our own eyes, so to speak. It
    true. And I'm curious about how and why you've come to see intellect as
    "entrenched and oppressive". Very curious. But I also think this might be a
    good case in point. Maybe its one of those times when we need to put our
    personal feelings aside and look again with unbias eyes. Ironically perhaps,
    it takes a certain kind of emotional maturity or emotional intelligence to
    put ones emotions aside. I think you'd agree.

    In this case it seems that my basic perceptions agree with Pirsig's, no?
    Does he not also see freedom, rights, democracy and other such liberating
    forces as a product of the intellect? That's pretty far away from
    oppressive, no? And entrenched? Compared to what? Its it more entrenched
    than the social level, which has been evolving for hundreds of thousands of
    years? According to Pirsig and common sense the intellect is less entrenched
    than just any about anything eles, no? And I think the impression that
    intellect is being resisted, especially by those who hold social level
    values most dear, if not embattled, is demonstrated by mountains of
    historical evidence.

    In other words, your personal experiences are not to be discounted or
    dismissed, but if we are talking about the nature of things and the state of
    the world we must allow the facts and evidence to bear the appropriate
    weight in that discussion, regardless of how we might feel about it. The is
    something dishonest about disregarding the facts, no? This is a good example
    of where thinking rationally actually requires a certain kind of morality.
    (I'm not making any accusations here, just making a point.) Likewise, I know
    from personal experience that being witness to such dishonesty can evoke a
    very strong emotion. I'm not sure what to call it. Its a little bit LIKE
    outrage, disgust or anger, but not exactly. You know what I mean, eh?

    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 Jun 14 2003 - 04:15:39 BST