From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Mon Sep 08 2003 - 17:27:01 BST
Hi again David M,
DM: "sorry, thought this was a Pirsig site."
Andy: It is. I came to the site because I, like many people, was inspired by
Pirsig. Often times the discussions goes pretty far off-field. Then someone
reminds us that it is a Pirsig site. But in the spirit of DQ, I think it is
wrongheaded to try and keep the discussion within certain bounds. Not that this
is what you are doing. I am just making an observation that there is a very
eclectic group of people who have wandered through here and a vast amount of
topics have been discussed.
From my perspective, after many people's input, there is still not much
universal agreement on exactly how the MOQ is suppose to be incorporated in our
society. The only consensus I have found is that Pirsig's ideas stimulated
almost every contributer to further their own intellectual pursuits. Since,
everyone comes to the table with different pursuits and experiences, it is no
wonder we often see people applying Pirsigs ideas to seeming opposing worldviews.
DM: "I am pretty sure that Darwinism is discussed in Lila and placed in the
larger context of MOQ to show its limitations."
Andy: or to demonstrate its strengths
DM: "But I can't be bothered to have a look at the moment."
Andy: Well, I can empathize with that. I am usually happy with just the
initial impression I got from reading ZMM and Lila. I can't go around giving
quotes. I appreciate it when other people do. But this just seems to take the
fun out of it for me.
DM: "I was trying to break this chat out of a narrow line of argument. I have
read Pirsig in the last few months, my views are not from Pirsig at all
I merely translated them into the language he uses."
Andy: OK
DM: "I as also saying that my problem is with the whole of science not just
Darwin. The problem is that science should be placed in its box as only one form
of knowledge."
Andy: Well this is the problem I have been having with both you and Scott. Your
leveling of scinetific materialism at Darwinism seems to me to blow all of
science out of the water. It can't just hit Darwinism only, but all of science
as we know it. Scott has vehemently denied this, but now you are confirming it.
I seem to have gotten the wrong impression of Scott's view of Darwinism. He
mentions this morning that it is fine for biology, just inadequate for
psychology. My whole point to him was not to use a theory out of its context.
Or expect it to do something it was never intended for. Because of the
success's in biology, theorists in other fields have, and rightfully so, have
attempted to apply this to other fields. This has often been met with failure.
Thus we get social Darwinism, the defense of free markets based on Darwin,
Politics, etc. But, this does not take away from the success of Darwinism in
explaining the biological world. Scott now seems to be conceding this point or
else he has has been saying this all along and I just missed it. But you are
now saying that materialism is a default inherent in ALL science.
Perhaps, materialism is the reason we don't have as much success in the social
sciences as the natural sciences using the scientific method. I think it is
obvious that any mechanistic or reductive approach to psychology will be met
with failure. Scott's example of going to the smallest unit demonstrates this,
but he is using ideas and theories established in physics to explain
consciousness and psychology. Of course, he will find that we need a
non-materialistic aspect to explain these things using this approach. I don't
think he needed to offer his proof. There is plenty of evidence in the
humanities already of the failure of mechanistic approaches to social and
psychological phenomena. Theories in the natural sciences do not easlily
transfer over to the social sciences. But, I don't think anyone is ever going
to define what this nonmaterial aspect is. You can call it quality, beauty or
freedom if you like, but these all mean different things to different people.
So, I totally agree with there is more to knowledge (although, I would
substitute knowledge with explaining experience)than science, but I refuse to
condemn all of science (espicially, as it is used in the natural sciences) and
think we should do without it and I don't think Pirsig was saying this either.
Scientific theories are used because they are the most useful applications for
solving problems in the material world. Darwinism is among those theories. Do
you agree with this?
DM: "We can only have knowledge of what we experience, what we experience is far
richer than what can be measured."
Andy: Agreed
DM: "I enjoy science but have found philosophy and literature far richer in
terms of understanding human beings."
Andy: Me too!
DM: "The sort of stuff the populist neo-Dariwnists write is just philistine."
Andy: Now here you go again. Philistine from MerriumWebster: "a person who is
guided by materialism and is usually disdainful of intellectual or artistic
values b : one uninformed in a special area of knowledge." Sorry I had to look
it up.
So, now we are separating populist neo-Drwinists from, What?...Scientific
neo-Darwinist. I don't know how to talk about either one because I don't know
where to draw the line. Maybe we should draw a line between Darwinism as it is
used in the biological community and Darwinism as it is used outside of this
community. Regardless I think we can stick with our agreeing that neo-Darwinists
are up to some useful things over there in the biological community. Can we
leave it at that?
DM: "And as for materialism, as the physicist Paul Davies says, to paraphrase:
the cocept of matter can probably now be described as a myth."
Andy: Hey! I like that. In fact, I think it could always have been described
as a myth. Its part of the story we tell explaing our experience. Matter,
Darwin, Science...all of it. I just wish you would quit singling out Darwiniwm
at the expense of the rest of science (or what we might replace it with) to make
your point.
Thanks,
Andy
> Hi
>
> sorry, thought this was a Pirsig site.
> I am pretty sure that Darwinism is discussed
> in Lila and placed in the larger context of MOQ
> to show its limitations. But I can't be bothered to have a look
> at the moment. I was trying to break this chat
> out of a narrow line of argument. I have read Pirsig
> in the last few months, my views are not from Pirsig at all
> I merely translated them into the language he uses.
> I as also saying that my problem is with the whole of science
> not just Darwin. The problem is that science should be
> placed in its box as only one form of knowledge. We can only
> have knowledge of what we experience, what we experience is far
> richer than what can be measured. I enjoy science but have
> found philosophy and literature far richer in terms of understanding
> human beings. The sort of stuff the populist neo-Dariwnists write
> is just philistine. And as for materialism, as the physicist Paul Davies
> says,
> to paraphrase:
> the concept of matter can probably now be described as a myth.
>
> regards
> DM
>
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 Sep 08 2003 - 17:28:17 BST