[MD] Quality decline in U.S. politics

[Platt Holden]

Keith, 

> -----Platt, Thursday, July 12, 2007 16:54-----
> It will be interesting to see how the courts treat the question of 
> allowing Muslim religious practices to take place during school hours on
> school property. I understand this is being permitted in some cities. In
> any event, I don't see the harm in allowing "Intelligent Design" to be
> introduced as a separate evolutionary theory. I don't think it threatens an
> establishment of  religion as conceived by the Founding Fathers.  Further,
> it teaches what science itself preaches -- knowledge is not absolute. 
> -----

[Keith] 
> Intellectual knowledge is never absolute and, as Pirsig says, the power of
> science lies in its Dynamic eraser, its willingness to change as new
> evidence is considered and its avoidance of dogmatism. If "Intelligent
> Design" were a theory accepted by scientists, I would have no problem with
> it being taught along side Darwinian natural selection in science classes
> just as I would have no problem with M theory being taught alongside
> Superstring theory in science classes. However, these competing speculative
> theories in cosmology have testable hypotheses that would allow one of them
> to be disproved. "Intelligent Design" does not appear to have any testable
> hypotheses and does not qualify as a scientific theory. If one wants to
> have it taught in Social Studies or World Cultures or Comparative Religion,
> I offer my endorsement. Just don't try to teach it in a science classroom,
> as that puts science right back in the lap of religious dogma, a clear case
> of Society subverting Intellect. Given that, teaching "Intelligent Design"
> as science in a public school does violate the Establishment clause of the
> U.S. Constitution, as Judge Jones found.

In a science classroom do you think it's proper to raise the question 
Pirsig asked, "Why survive?"

In a science classroom do you think it's proper to point out that many 
scientists are religious and initiate a discussion around the following
quote from Paul Davies, a physicist?

"I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a 
conventional religion but nevertheless deny the universe is a purposeless 
accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more 
strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so 
astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact."    

Pirsig has a value-centered explanation of evolution. Should it be taught 
in a science class? 

There is much to discuss about "testability," "proof,"  and "truth," but 
that's for another day perhaps. 
  
> -----Platt, Thursday, July 12, 2007 16:54-----
> I have no problem with gays getting "married" without a formal contract
> recognized by the state. But "married" as recognized by the state means a
> union of a man and women to procreate and raise children within a family
> setting, long recognized by societies throughout the world and over eons of
> time as the best arrangement for insuring long term social viability. Thus,
> I don't feel maintaining the status quo regarding marriage is "anti- gay."
> -----

[Keith] 
> "Married" as *currently* recognized by most states means a union of a man
> and a woman, whether or not they procreate and raise children. I am legally
> married to a woman with no intention of fathering children. If some states
> want to recognize legally the same social pair-bond between same-sex
> couples, why interfere other than to advance a prejudice against gays? What
> effect on long-term social viability would allowing that legal recognition
> have? Do you think heterosexuals will suddenly stop getting married to each
> other & procreating if they knew that they could instead get married to
> someone of their own sex instead? Do you think gay couples shouldn't raise
> children? I know committed gay couples who adopt children now even without
> the benefit of legally recognized marriage. That's become quite common. Is
> that dynamic of loving, committed couples adopting unwanted children
> undermining our social viability? Your appeal to tradition makes no sense
> to me in this context.

My appeal is more to what's necessary to maintain a viable society than an 
appeal to tradition, although there is reason for the tradition. But I 
agree this is a matter of state law and would not raise an objection to 
your voting to legalize gay marriage in your state if that's what you 
want. I would vote otherwise in mine. I don't think the issue rises to the 
national level as some social conservatives believe. But, if you were to 
ask if I though English should be the official national language, I would 
say "Yes."

> -----Platt, Thursday, July 12, 2007 16:54-----
> It's not so much my line of reasoning as Pirsig's which is spelled out in
> detail in Lila. Basically the scientific subject-object mindset prevalent
> today considers morality, if it considers it at all, as completely
> subjective, a matter of personal whim. Pirsig explains:
> 
> "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a 
> completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point in anything.
> Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything just functions, like
> machinery. There is nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally
> wrong with lying, with theft, with suicide, with murder, with genocide.
> There is nothing morally wrong because there are no morals, just functions.
> Now that intellect was in command of society for the first time in history,
> was this the intellectual pattern it was going to run society with?" (Lila,
> 22) -----
> 
> Yes, I'm familiar with that quotation. My confusion on this stems from your
> reference to this point in context of saying that socialism & communism
> were intellectual patterns trying to control society. I don't understand
> the connection. I think socialism & communism both make strong moral
> judgments, coming down in favor of human equality, against class
> distinctions, etc. I don't see either socialism or communism as sciences,
> however, and don't see how they are devoid of values. Sorry I'm still
> missing it.

The question is: What is the basis for making a moral judgment that 
equality is more desirable than variety, or that a classless society is 
preferable to a meritocracy? Pirsig's claim is that subject-object 
intellect has no basis for making moral judgements. In fact, he says, to 
subject-object intellect, moral judgments don't exist because they can't 
be detected scientifically. What is fair? What is just? Science hasn't a 
clue. Marx and his friends where simply making personal judgments about 
right and wrong. Is that what morality comes down to, personal whim?

The MOQ attempts to put moral questions on a rational, if not scientific, 
basis. Specifically regarding the morality of socialism, Pirsig said, "But 
what the socialists left out and what has all but killed their whole 
undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality." 
(Lila, 17)   

What this all boils down to is,  "How does intellect determine the Good?"

Good question. :-) 
 
And while we're at it, we might ask, "How does intellect determine the 
Beautiful?"

[Keith]
> I realize in looking over this thread that since I keep cutting out the
> text where we agree to keep my posts of manageable length, that it seems
> from the text that we only disagree, but in fact despite these divergences
> we have significant common ground. 

Indeed we do. And I much appreciate the civility in our conversation.

Platt