[MD] The Moral Landscape

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 19 Oct 2010 at 20:52, Steven Peterson wrote:

Hi Platt,

Platt to Mark:
> I couldn't agree with you more. You have deftly revealed what's behind the
> curtain of science's claim to "truth." What's true is what Pirsig observed:
> "Science has no values. Not officially." Just as it is impossible for a
> calculator to calculate itself, it's impossible for a discipline that has no
> values to comprehend values.

Steve:
You missed the point as usual. In the bit you refer to here Pirsig
tried to get science to recognize that it actually does have values
not to argue that we ought to get rid of science or remind science to
stay in its value-neutral place. Instead he wanted to expand the
concept of rationality--a root expansion of reason--so it can deal
with values and so values can be opened to rational inquiry. What you
are arguing against is pretty much Pirsig's main philosophical project
in his two books.

Hi Steve,
As usual you try to bend Pirsig's philosophy to your worship of science and 
reason. In ZAMM Pirsig challenges the Church of Reason, and in Lila he is quite 
emphatic about science's moral defect. As for expanding the concept of 
rationality, it can't be done with a metaphysics whose central term is 
undefined. The main philosophical project of Pirsig's two books is show how the 
premise of the world as a moral order expands human understanding which, as 
most would agree, is not limited to scientific inquiry as you suggest.