Bo, [DT before] >> Bo you just keep getting further and further from any semblance of >> correspondence to anything RMP wrote, let alone meant. Even a >> majority of science has given up on absolute objectivity [Bo before] > MOQ's "DQ/SQ" split has nothing to do with SOM's "subject/object" > one. Another thing, yes, SOM that have given up on "objects", but it > has not given up on "objectivity" - these two must be kept apart - > physics (f.ex.) would not keep on making hypothesis and testing them > if the objectivity rug was pulled from under them. This is what the SOL > preserves.
Read Bo read. I said "given up on absolute objectivity" not "given up on objects." If you would read something more current than 200 year old Kant you might find out that the current discussions in science are moving it closer and closer to James/RMP's position that "truth is a species of good." Currently "objectivity" in science is understood to be more "provisional" in nature, rarely if ever claiming "proven theories" to be universally and absolutely true forever and always. Physics is quite comfortable with make conjectural statements (theories) about the nature of reality knowing full well that after experimenting some,none,all, or just a little bit will be verified. This is what the whole process of science is about. And five years from now that which is currently "true" could well be false. Hell there are at least four or five contending theories for quantum mechanics right now. And they all maybe verified as partially true/false at sometime in the future . So the problem is not science's but your misunderstanding of it's current condition. >> The intellectual level in Pirsig's MoQ expands rationality to >> include "OBJECTIVE study", "SUBJECTIVE study", and "VALUATIVE >> study" of all levels. > > OK I know about everything being an intellectual development (in > SOMish: everything inside mind) When have I (or Magnus for that matter) claimed that "everything [is] inside the mind"? How can intellectual patterns that are products of human social groups be "inside a mind"? To the contrary the reason I have argued that "intellect" and "intellectual level" are distinctly different is to make clear that intellectual patterns ARE NOT PATTERNS OF THE MIND. They are records, artifacts, of critically rational dialogues between human beings trying to find out what is good in the way to believe. Dave 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/md/archives.html
