From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Tue Sep 09 2003 - 00:12:34 BST
Hi David,
Yep, I'm in the US. And we have a particular problem here with fundamentalists
who want to go back to teaching creationist theory in our schools. Might be why
I go on and on.
Andy
> 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
>
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 : Tue Sep 09 2003 - 00:13:41 BST