Hi Matt
That was quite a handful, thanks for taking the time.
A few thoughts along the way:
I'm not sure we'll have much more success limiting a search for correctness on
the static side of Q. As you say, "correctness isn't a category that applies to
all areas of investigation", but the static side of Q describes all
investigatable areas, so we'd have to limit it even more, and then we leave the
nice DQ/SQ split (unless we can show that the set of "all areas of
investigation" is a superset of the set of "investigatable areas", and that it
is DQ that prohibits correctness from being applied to some of the "areas of
investigation"). (By "investigatable areas", I mean areas that stay the same
and
can allow for repeated experiments etc.)
However, the static levels do describe how that language (the one we're
supposed
to be suspended in) connects to lower levels and ultimately physics. I'm not
sure the levels allow for much elaborated proof reasoning, but it may be worth
examining a bit closer.
> p.s. I'm going to work on another post for the "static levels" conversation,
> which you said you'd like to discuss in "great detail." While my hesitance
> to discuss the levels is tied into the above endpoint, lack of criteria,
> painting is the hobby that Pirsig prides over all others, though I think
> you're wrong in thinking you aren't using any imagination--metaphysicians
> wouldn't be very good at their job if they lacked imagination.
Of course you're right. Any truly creative exercise requires imagination. Not
sure how that slipped past my fingers.
Magnus
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
