From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 08 2003 - 21:01:42 BST
Hi Andy
I have had a thought, are you in the US?
We have a particular problem on the island
that gave us Darwin with populist
neo-Darwinists. If your non-uk, you won't
realise the trouble we have been having &
why we keep going on and on.
regards
David Morey
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
> 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
>
>
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 - 21:06:30 BST