[MD] Spinning our Wheels, metaphorically speaking

[david buchanan]

John said:
More troublesome is the statement "it is evil to put the higher levels in the service of a lower one". Is it really evil for a man to engage intellectually so that he can land a good academic position and feed his wife and kids? Because if so, you've got some explaining to do to Qualigod, as Arlo names him. And if not, then what do you really mean?



dmb says:

It just means that it's sleazy to be a sell-out. If you do academic or scientific work and get paid for it there is nothing wrong with that. But if the paycheck is given priority so that you twist your ideas around to keep from getting fired, then you're selling out. If there are scientific findings that tell us certain kinds of economic activity pose a danger, say the fossil fuel business and climate change, and you hide those findings in order to protect the financial interests that are posing that danger, then you've put cash over truth, not to mention putting people at risk for the sake of a buck.

Pirsig uses "The Graduate" as an example of what it means to sell out. "Plastics!", says some middle-aged square to the young graduate, played by Dustin Hoffman. What should he do with his fancy degree in science? Should he find a position where he can do pure research? Nah, the square tells him, he should go into plastics because that's where the money is. It's a form of prostitution. Might as well sell your love to the highest bidder. If one really has to do such a thing in order to survive, then it's better than dying. But whoring yourself sure ain't nothin' to be proud of. 

In his undergraduate days Phaedrus had given very short shrift because of the title of one of his books: THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. James was supposed to be a scientist, but what kind of scientist would pick a title like that? With what instrument was James going to measure these varieties of religious experience? How would he empirically verify his data?  It smelled more like some Victorian religious propagandist trying to smuggle God into the laboratory data. They used to try to do that to try to counteract Darwin. Phaedrus had read early nineteenth century chemistry texts telling how the exact combination of hydrogen and oxygen to produce water told of the wonderous workings of the mind of God. This looked like more of the same.   However, in his rereading of James, he had so far found three things that were beginning to dissolve his early prejudice.  ..The second was a reference to James' dislike of the dichotomy of the universe into subjects and objects. That, of course, put him automatically on the side of Phaedrus' angels." (Lila, p. 325)

"He wanted particularly to see how much actual evidence there was for the statement that James' whole purpose was to 'unite science and religion.' That claim had turned him against James years ago, and he didn't like it any better now. When you start our with an axe like that to grind, it's almost guaranteed that you will conclude with something false. The statement seemed more like some philosophological simplification written by someone with a weak understanding of what philosophy is for. To put philosophy in the service of any social organization or any dogma is immoral. It's a lower form of evolution trying to devour a higher one." (Lila, p362)

We see exactly the same objection in the annotations, where Pirsig gets increasingly irritated by the theological overtones and finally complains about trying these theists trying to smuggle their goods in through the back door. I mean, come on John. Pirsig is quite consistent and unequivocal on this point. If Pirsig is reading this stuff, then he is watching you try to smuggle theism into his philosophy. Do you think he'd be okay with that and somehow grant an exception in your case? 

I know you get real bent out of shape over this and tend to my complaints as prejudiced personal attacks but look at what Pirsig is saying, man. I'm not making this up. Pirsig's view of such things is right there in front of you. All I can do it put it on your plate. But you've got to pick it up and chew on it for a while. Otherwise, the busboy is going come along and take it away, thereby throwing a perfectly good meal in the trash. And whose fault will that be? The cook's? The waiter's? Where does your intellectual responsibility factor into this? You came into Bob's diner, where they don't serve theism, and ordered the dish. What did you expect to get? That's like demanding sushi at a pizza place or demanding a rare steak at a vegan juice stand and then getting angry when they explain why that's not possible. 









 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4