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

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Mary,

Superb post -- clear, succinct and correct. Thanks for sharing an astute 
realization.  .

Regards,
Platt.   




On 24 Jan 2010 at 14:31, Mary wrote:

> 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.