Hello Matt,
Matt said:
If all that is agreed to, then I have three comments/suggestions:
1) I had originally commented on "truth-finding" when you moved to talk
about certainty and objectivism. I think in developing a sustained
interpretation, how all these things relate should become clearer. For
instance, the notion of "verifiable" and it's use in knowledge/truth,
but not the certainty of having an experience. I agree with the general
outlines, and in developing your view, it would interesting to see how
you relate the "certainty" (all alone, as it is) of the first-person
point of view to the "verifiable certainty" (with a new friend) of
truth/knowledge.
Ron:
I would begin to connect them in a way that centers around instinctive
Decision making. Building on the concept that millions of years of
evolution
it's success and verifiability founded in the fact that we exist
presently by virtue of these qualia. This I feel, is the way we can make
our case
for pre-intellectual experience being more empirical than SOM's
objectivism.
>From the objective side, it may be seen as the human body being the
prime
Scientific instrument in which data is interpreted, verifiable by
tertiary
Intellectual tools. Pirsig warns that these tertiary intellectual tools
Are constructed on assumptions and to keep this in mind when building
A conceptual understanding of experience.
It gives the old testament words "I am that I am " an interesting
Descartes context. I am therefore I am. Certainty in being. The
foundation of all truths.
Matt:
2) You suggest "verifiable certainty" may involve "objectivism to
establish." I would develop what you mean by "objectivism," especially
how it relates to "SOM." The way I would use the terms must certainly
be different because I don't think "SOM" refers to anything other than
optional philosophical views. I understand that Bo doesn't, and that
your view owes something to his view, so I would develop and make very
clear what things you think are necessary to reality (first instance, in
my terms, the first-person point of view) and those things that are
optional (for instance, in your terms, intellectually defining
certainty).
Ron:
Points well taken. Establishing what SOM is and How MoQ functions with
it
Seems to me to be the paramount argument to establish. I feel once we
Can demonstrate HOW MoQ provides a clearer understanding it will gain
A wider acceptance. It must be presented as pragmatic. It must be
useful.
On this I agree with Bo.
Matt:
3) I think your bridge to grammar and language is good, and I would
expand on it. However, I would add the caveat that, if you try too hard
to stick to parameters laid out by Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality, you
might stymie your own search. Follow your nose, draw your own map, and
let your work shine a light on Pirsig and see how Pirsig's work shines a
light on yours.
Ron:
Good advice, Thanks Matt.
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/
