[MD] Tit's

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Krimel" <Krimel at Krimel.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's


> Marsha,
> There are plenty of reasons why misery persists in the modern world that
> have nothing to do with science. Science provides us with unprecedented
> opportunities to remake the world in our own images.

What exactly does that last sentence mean?


As I have said before
> we are rapidly acquiring godlike powers and it is frequently disappointing
> to see how we use them.

Pretty, but bs.


There is little doubt that the past century was the
> bloodiest in history as a result of the application of technology to the
> making of war. But it is also true that that science has extended average
> life expectancy and provided more food for more people than ever before.

The extended life expectancy might be for no better reason than men learned 
they needed to wash their hands.  You've written scientific public-relation 
nonsense.   Children are still starving in numbers too large to contemplate.


> I do not doubt that most of us find our experience with medical technology
> trying but then they also enable many of us to continue having experiences
> we would not other wise be able to have. I would also suggest that most of
> your own grievances with medicine at least as you have described them
> previously are not with science but with the politics and economics of the
> medical establishment. It is their use of technology not the technology
> itself.

Science, politics and economics are in a codependent relationship with each 
other.  As are technology and the user of technology.  They are mutually 
dependent.  Interconnect patterns.


>
> Ham refuses to address the many points I have raised about his affection 
> of
> philosophical sophistication. So I have little to say about his third 
> person
> allusions to my posts. But I would point out for your benefits that Pirsig
> advocates an expanded view of empiricism. He also at some point advocates 
> a
> kind of scientific idealism.

For this last sentence, you will have to elaborate and site references.  And 
what this has to do with an expanded empiricism?



At this point I would mention that he is
> acknowledging the essential monistic quality of science.

Please explain.


Is the quarrel then
> really over whether to describe the undefinable monism as idealistic or
> materialistic? Is this the kind over meaningless discourse that 
> Wittgenstein
> has reduced philosophy too? I would say how sad is that?

I don't see that Quality can be defined as either idealistic or 
materialistic.  It's undefinable.

As long as one keeps it in mind that mountains are ultuimately not 
mountains, one can proceed safely acknowledging mountains.


>
> I would also insist that the Value of science is its refusal to make
> dogmatic claims about nature.

And it dogmatically believes this statement to be true.


Rather it constantly scrutinizes and questions
> its assumptions and its findings.

Only when forced to by litigation.  Science, as well as politics, is owned 
and controlled by capital producing entities.


>
> You seem repeatedly concerned that all of this or all of that is JUST a
> bunch of conceptual patterns. The implication is that any such set of
> conceptual patterns is some how worthless at best and evil at worst.

I've never stated that conceptual patterns are in any way worthless.  Don't 
put words in my mouth.  It is important that they be acknowledged for what 
they are, and they are conceptual patterns.  They are also the way the 
conventional world functions.


As I
> have said previously even Buddhists are not so much opposed to patterns or
> conceptualization as they are to the clinging to such patterns. Desire is
> the cause of suffering even the desire to be free of conceptualization.

I'm not opposed to patterns.  Yes, you did state you studied Buddhism. 
Interesting.


>
> I would add that some patterns are built into us. Our experiences of
> pleasure and pain result from the patterns passed down to us from our
> ancestors in our genetic code.

This genetic code thing hasn't proven itself to be all that was initally 
claimed.  It's story is still being written, and the pen is in the hands of 
the pharmaceutical companies at the moment.


Others we acquire through the process of
> living. I believe that what Pirsig enjoins us to do is to understand that
> our conceptions of the world from moment to moment are Kulpian illusions;
> not hallucinations so much as provisional orderings of experience that can
> and sometimes are different from moment to moment. They are the meaning 
> that
> we make out of the patterns that we have had and are having.

The patterns are the meaning.   That's why it's important to understand them 
first as conceptual entities.