[MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ

[Scott Roberts]

Ian,

Scott said
[To] hold pragmatist critiques to be fundamental ... but pragmatists
don't like anything to be fundamental.

Ian said:
Which is why I see this recursion (and your CI) as a positive aspect
to accept as part of reality. Like - my only axiom is there are no
axioms, is an OK axiom to hold - surely ? I love it. Hofstadter's
strange loopiness is better than logic. Exclusive poles are indeed
nonsense.

Scott:
The problem with strange loops, or recursion, or chaos theory, etc., etc., 
is that by themselves one is still lacking an explanation of all things 
mental. Hence...

Ian said:
You also concluded
Though CI cannot be thought through, it can be thought, and therefore
is a vital clue to the nature of thought (and consciousness and
quality).

I still don't fully understand what CI actually is, but I like the shape of 
it.

Scott:
It can't be "understood", that is, thought through. The only way to get any 
sort of handle on it is to do it, that is, think about something that 
requires CI to be thought about, like "what continues as you experience 
something changing".

Ian said:
(Materialism is so old hat - I'm not sure why you raised it ?)

Scott:
I raise it because it still directs to varying degrees many people's 
thinking, including Pirsig, Arlo, Case, Matt K, Rorty, and, I suspect, you. 
Do you still take Darwinism seriously as a basis to explain the origin of 
consciousness and language? Do you, in fact, think that they originated? Do 
you think space and time are the background in which consciousness exists? 
See my dialogue with Case for why I see materialism as still needing to be 
fought.

- Scott