[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[skutvik at online.no]

Dave T.

30 Jan. you wrote:
 
> Continuing on the trail of the intellect through the social world:
 
> At this point this whole thread turns in my mind into a comic/tragic
> reality/farce. RMP spends two books tracing the history of the "Church
> of Reason" criticizing the ongoing consequences of using subject and
> object as the fundamental underlying premise Western philosophy and
> science. He proposed rejecting it and many still cling to it. 

Agree!

> I cannot see how anyone can reject the claim that human knowledge is
> not somehow tied up in the workings of the human brain, based on
> individual intelligence, experience, thinking about those experiences,
> and entering into conversations with other about them.

No one, least this guy, rejects the above, but what YOU obviously 
don't understand is that "the workings of the human brain" AKA 
intelligence has worked for all Q-levels and hopefully will work for the 
MOQ.   

> I truly don't know whether to laugh or cry that after 15 years it is
> still the case with many still are unable or unwilling to accept RMP's
> rejection of SO premise or accept the most basic premise that
> experience is a basis for knowledge. Yet whole heartedly accept his
> quality premise which is predicated of acceptance of these claims. 

I definitely agree with rejecting the S/O premises, but I wonder if 
Pirsig at times has. Why this harping on "experience" or "empiricism" 
- even "radical empiricism" - being particularly MOQish? Isn't 
empiricism the claim that the source of everything is the senses, 
which is SOM's objective-materialist camp in contrast to thinking as 
the source which is SOM's subjective-idealist camp? This do NOT 
look like rejecting the S/O premises rather embracing SOM. But of 
late you Dave have become so enigmatic that this may be what you 
object to too, I'm not able to decide. 

> Then someone suggested to me that those most strongly attracted to
> Pirsig's work identify personally with his saga  and view him as this
> ruggedly individualist  "walking wounded" intellectual hero that
> society has ground down and thwarted at every turn. Whispering to
> themselves in effect, "Yea just like me!" Unfortunately our claims are
> true. And maybe in part RMP's are too. But for entirely different
> reasons. We probably just don't have the intellectual power and
> background in the first place necessary to tackle these issues on our
> own.

See, what do you say here is a bit over my head and so is the rest

Bodvar

















.

> Not that society can be held completely blameless. The whole history
> (myth in reality) of philosophy and science has been portrayed as the
> consequences of the thoughts of super smart named individuals like
> Socrates, Plato, on and on. And RMP bought into that myth pure and
> simple. Had he early on been to integrate himself into an appropriate
> group his contributions would probably been earlier and greater.
 
> What got me thinking this way was when Krimel (I think) raised the
> issue of RMP's apparent misunderstanding or lack of consideration in
> Lila with more recently progress in science particularly evolutionary
> sciences. While recently listening to the radio broadcasts that Marsha
> posted I heard the term "Science Wars" for the first time. My
> ignorance of them, while not excusable, might be understood given my
> nearly complete day to day focus on the practical matter of building.
> Given Pirsig's focus, however, that they should have started in 1962
> with the publishing of Thomas Kuhn's, "The Structure of Scientific
> Revolutions" and raged on during the whole time he was writing both
> his books with no mention is an indication IMHO of his isolation from
> the reality of what was going on in the fields he was talking about
> while researching and writing about them, particularly Lila.
> 
> Why? Because the "Science Wars" were about the very same issues that
> Pirsig was trying to confront. Questions like "Do values that
> influence science?, "If so which ones and how?", "Is science and
> individual or group activity?" "Is theory or experiment more
> important?" All these and more raised for the first time in a serious
> way. But we read no mention of this in Lila.
> 
> Conclusions or insights of these wars? Well they are still going on,
> but it is becoming clearer and clearer that all scientific and
> philosophical knowledge is filtered, warped, shaped, informed by
> social values and there is in fact not some pure form of objective,
> valueless, intellectual truth the S/O project supposed. That Good is
> as good as you get.
> 
> All the broadcasts are good and help expand RMP's insights but this
> one: Episode 10 - Brian Wynne
> http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html#episode1 Best
> covers the history of the "Science Wars" IMHO.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of KAYE
> > PALM-LEIS Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 1:20 PM To:
> > moq_discuss at moqtalk.org Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect's Symposium
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 
>