[MD] Science and the MOQ

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Jorge

You pre-empted this post with your questions, these are added at 
the end.   

On 9 March you wrote:

>    I had a sort of insight about Science and the MOQ,
> or rather "Science, Pirsig, MOQ and History" that I'd
> like to share with you as a hypothesis for discussion.

I have read all of your post Jorge and your point is understood. I 
am not much younger than Pirsig and know that science (physics 
preferably) has gone through many great changes. Back in the 
fifties it was Relativity and it's undermining of absolute time and 
space. Then it was Quantum Theory in the seventies and 
eighties. It's conclusions (Schrodinger's Cat for instance) and 
predictions if possible even weirder. We know that Einstein 
worked out a "thought experiment" that would prove QT either 
false or correct, he himself was sure of the former. I remember 
the sensation (1985?) when Alain Aspect of France was able to 
assemble the necessary apparatus that proved Einstein wrong. 
Because SOM provides the premises for this experiment  it must 
necessarily conclude that it is "subjective", but if we believe that 
will abolish objectivism we are wrong, the two are interlinked - a 
seesaw I call it - if one goes up the other goes down, again and 
again. 

In ZAMM I too winced a bit over Pirsigs (upon being confronted 
with SOM's two horns) calling the objective one the mean one, 
like Jorge says it may have been valid in the forties and fifties, 
but even in the seventies - at ZAMM's publishing - the objective 
side to SOM was blunted while the subjective was sharper and 
the mean one .... if one's mission was to refute SOM. In LILA 
however Pirsig had updated himself and refers to Quantum 
Physics in his effort to show that "substance" is a hoax and 
further to show that Inorganic Patterns of Value has no problems 
with Relativity and/or Quantum Theory or whatever Physics has 
in store.. 

But I am wary over the belief that the MOQ has any more 
sympathy with subjectivism than with objectivism, and is meant 
to be a New Age-ish mysticism. It is far from that. And I'm aghast 
when the Latter Day Pirsig in "Lila's Child" presents "philosophic 
idealism" as its route to being accepted (annotation #102) and in 
in # 97 about ideas being primary. No, and again the SOL 
interpretation is the only way. SOM and it's major pattern science 
is valuable and must be kept as the highest static level, but no 
longer is its S/O divide metaphysically/philosophically valid, just a 
tool. Existence's real divide is the DQ/SQ one.

IMO

Bo                 

PS.
The said questions:

> Jorge: A question for you, Bo. Could I take your words as implying that
> as long as scientists rely (heavily) on the S/O distinction, it doesn't
> conflict with the MOQ? That the conflict appears only when scientists
> adopt or accept SOM? 
 
A most penetrating question Jorge, straight to the point I have 
raised several times: What will MOQ's impact on science be? 
Can science go on working as if nothing has happened even if 
the metaphysical rug is pulled from under it? IMO yes they can, 
as showed in the Relativity and Quantum examples the S/O as M 
(as reality really is) is already weakened, yet science goes on.      

>  Suppose I'm doing a series of measurements on the red-shift of some
> celestial body and that, in so doing, I try to approach objectivity as
> much as I can. So far, no conflict with MOQ? 

In a possible MOQ-based future a scientist doing the said 
measurements will know that his work is that of the highest static 
value. The fact that the absolute split is the DQ/SQ one will not 
diminish the said S/O distinction. As said the S/O as fundamental 
has been undermined for a long time.     

> Suppose next that, because of me(and others doing the same) have been
> pretty objective, I believe said measurements reflect "the truth" about
> the velocity of that celestial body, I'd be in conflict with the MOQ? 

No, not at all. Truth - objectivity - is the highest static good .... in 
the SOL interpretation. What I don't like is Pirsig in LILA making 
it sound as if the MOQ is out to prove "science and knowledge" 
as fraudulent because they have forgotten their social roots, i.e. 
their efforts to sound objective is false and further that (his) 
intellectual level will be set right if this is achieved. However (the 
SOL) intellect need not be chastised for "forgetting its social 
roots", its very PURPOSE is to free existence of social bigotry by 
pursuing truth.      

In my not always humble opinion.

Bo