[MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting

[Mary]

Hello Krimel, Mar, X Acto, Marsha, and all in this thread,

I would like to revisit something brought up last Thursday in this thread
(apologies for running behind, but I've read all the follow up since, and
don't see this addressed).  Objections have been made to Pirsig's Baggini
interview, and particularly the quote below:

BAGGINI: 
One final question about aspects of the MOQ that might help explain academic
resistance to it. LILA has a remarkably wide scope and as a result it often
deals with, dismisses or solves ideas rather brusquely. 

For example, at one point you say "[The theory of evolution] goes into many
volumes about how the fittest survive but never once goes into the question
of why." (p144) 

Most biologists would see that as blatantly untrue, and that furthermore, if
you think the question of why the fittest survive hasn't been answered by
the theory of evolution, you just haven't understood it. Now it may well be
that you have responses to this and can explain why it is you think the
question of why the fittest survive hasn't really been addressed. But if you
present your thesis in this telescopic, sweeping way, surely you can't
complain if informed critics dismiss you. You can't expect them to take it
on trust that behind these assertions are more careful, fuller arguments
that justify the claims.  

PIRSIG: 
That line was an integral part of an entire chapter on the subject and thus
cannot be called telescopic. I would answer that biologists who think my
question doesn't understand the theory of evolution are biologists who do
not understand the difference between "how" and "why." The answers they give
for "why" are usually "competitive advantage" or "survival of the fittest."
But if you look closely you will see that these are not scientific terms.
"Fittest" is a subjective term. It exists only in the mind of a scientific
observer. It isn't out there in the nature he observes. The same is true of
"advantage." Ask a biologist who thinks my question doesn't understand the
theory of evolution, to define in exact scientific terms the meaning of
these evaluative words. If he takes time to do so I predict he will give up
or he will come up with nonsense or he will find himself drifting eventually
toward the solutions arrived at by the Metaphysics of Quality.
-----

I think Pirsig is very clear here.  The point he makes is that science is
pretty good at figuring out the "how", but is clueless about figuring out
the "why".  There IS a huge difference between the two questions.  That
Pirsig gets some scientific particulars wrong in Lila is not the point at
all, and focusing on that is irrelevant to the discussion.  Scientific
particulars will change daily.  Mark pointed that out, quite correctly.  The
thing is, science is not setup properly to answer the "whys".  It cannot do
it and never will.  This is Pirsig's point.  The metaphysical underpinning
for all of science is lacking the ability to do so.  SOM LACKS THE ABILITY
TO ANSWER THE "WHYS".  If you base your world-view on SOM, then value is
just "whatever you like".  It has no solid meaning and cannot be measured in
a laboratory.  To try to use science to answer "why" will, if taken to its
logical conclusion, result in his last sentence: "he will find himself
drifting eventually toward the solutions arrived at by the Metaphysics of
Quality."  

You can debate endlessly the nature of entropy, but matter and energy are
manifestations of the same thing, and cannot be created nor destroyed.
Entropy is merely the turning of free energy into bound matter.  But the
energy is still there - in the matter - waiting for the appropriate set of
conditions to engender its release.

Pure energy is chaos, by definition.  


Mary

- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.