[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Matt Kundert]

Ian said:For me this just further illustrates that there is very little to distinguish social and intellectual level patterns. DMB said:When the Bush administration supresses scientific data for political and financial reasons, is that just a clash of equal philosophies? Are we really powerless to discern the difference or see patterns? Ron said:no but the lines aren't as exactly clear as you seem to think they are. Matt:What Ian was pointing to is the fact that it is difficult to split the so-called intellectual level from the so-called social level while saying all the things Pirsig says about both level-splitting and the levels themselves.  DMB was arguing for the utility of the distinction based on its ability to distinguish a certain phenomena.  Ron was muddying DMB's phenomena by illustrating other facets of the phenomena. I think Ian is right, but would put the point that it isn't philosophically tenable when writing up a evolutionary schematic to distinguish the two as Pirsig did (one reason: symbol manipulation is too embedded in sociability).  I think DMB is right that there is a difference between the science community and the Bush administration, but calling it a clash of philosophies at all would be a mistake.  DMB (I think) is mocking the notion that the Bush administration has a philosophy, which is something like the idea that once you expose the untenability of a hardline distinction between social/intellectual (or philosophy/ideology), you are left in cultural relativism (the defeat of which, thus producing the mock, is part of the impetus behind Pirsig's levels).   However, a philosophy could certainly be drawn up for the neocons, and what it produces is a vision of life very different than the one embodied by science-believing folks.  The notion of equality is misplaced, but calling it a fight between two forms of life is not, and in that battle saying one is bereft of the power of reason misunderstands where the battle must (in part) be fought.  Which is what I take Ron and Ian to be saying. The main point that Ian, Ron, and I can certainly agree on, that DMB thinks we are abdicating, is that there are differences and patterns that are discernable.  If Pirsig is to be believed, we could not help but discern differences and patterns.  No one could deny it without seeming to deny their own existence (which would be a very contrarian attitude).  What Ian, Ron, and I are saying is more like, we are seeing slightly different patterns and differences than DMB is, or would like to call the same patterns something different (which is kinda' the same as saying they are slightly different).  For instance, rather than hard-splitting culture up into two, social and intellectual, I would prefer to split culture up pluralistically, creating as many discernable sectors and areas as we need to deal with particular problems (e.g., distinguishing between the scientific and political sectors). Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct