From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 09 2003 - 17:54:21 BST
Hi Andy
You have my sympathy, I think we are fighting on very different fronts.
Keep going on and on and I'll meet you in the middle!
In sympathy, from nihilist Europe.
David Morey
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
> 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
>
>
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 - 18:04:41 BST