I'll try and be brief, as I think there are a few misunderstandings between us and a few differing points of interpretation. I think they might be impassable.
Let's see.
The device in fighting against no-man Oakeshott was not to establish Truth. A game which, rightly, cannot be won. The goal, because we cannot convince Oakeshott himself, was to create a sort of catechism (as Pirsig calls it) of argumentation to throw at any flesh and blood person that arises with Oakeshott's temprament. It was to establish truth for us, and to back it with a good reason (in case anyone asked).
To understand anything that has been written on the MoQ as anything but an intellectual static pattern is to not understand what an intellectual static pattern is. It's why Pirsig calls the Metaphysics of Quality an oxymoron. A contradiction in terms. But, as Pirsig also says, the MoQ already exists. Any definition beyond that it exists is just our way of coping with reality. The Dynamic-static split is just a better way of coping than a subject-object split. That's what Lila is all about (and I realize I'm starting to sound like a broken record in telling everyone "definitively" what Lila and/or ZAMM are supposedly all about, but bear with me). It's about making the case that D-s is better than S-O. And both are arbitrary ways in coping with the world.
And as for unfalsifiability, that's what metaphysics are. They are unfalsifiable. It is why the scientific world and the Analytic philosophers deem metaphysics as a waste of time. Because science is what demands the possibility of falsification. Nothing in reality demands that.
(Since I'm going in a linear fashion down your e-mail, I thought I'd put here as a side note that you are probably right in your in-game rejoinder to what I said about no-man Oakeshott.)
And now for the biggest misunderstanding of all: my comment about God. I said:
(As for the God appendix to your meta-level discussion, I suggest staying out of it completely. It will get you know where here.)
The reason I said that is because I've found discussing God in relation to the MoQ isn't a very fruitful pursuit in this forum (this e-mail list). I don't want to sound condemning of anyone (some would probably condemn me), but it isn't fruitful here. I have no problem with God in metaphysics. I've studied and thought a lot about the subject. I have some opinions and arguments about it, too. But the metaphorical air isn't quite right here. If I had to put my finger on it, it would be too much antagonism and defensiveness. There are reasons for that, though. Namely the antagonism and defensiveness. Another wonderful circle that's hard to break and has nothing to with what's being discussed.
(As another side note, I was interested in your description of Quakers. It was not what I thought it was. Mind you, I didn't really have a formal opinion in the first place, but the main reason I bring it up is because it illustrates a misunderstanding I had with drose. I said: "[E]xclusive religions (like Catholicism) might frown upon a Catholic being a pantheist." Drose responded "As to the exclusivity of the Catholic faith, all I can say is you'd be really surprised if you looked a little more closely - I know I was." I wasn't implying anything about particular Catholics, as if they frowned at other people who weren't Catholic. Two of my close friends are wonderful, hardcore Catholics. What I was saying about the Catholic faith is that it is exclusive in the fact that not all people go to heaven. Buddhists for instance. I was using it in a technical "religious studies textbook" sense. On the other hand, Quakers, as far as I can tell from your description, are inclusive. "The only dogma we have is that we don't have any dogma...." That's a fairly good description of textbook inclusiveness. The other thing I should say is that I wan't passing any judgement as to which is better: exclusivenss or non-exclusiveness.)
Tired again and needing some karaoke,
Matt
