[MD] Food for Thought

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> I assume by "reliability" and "validity" you have in mind various tests
> proposed by science. Yet as I'm sure you know, science is helpless when
> faced with one time, non-repeatable events such as an individual's
> revelation of God, not to mention the beginning of the universe and
> life. To grant a monopoly on truth to science seems shortsighted to me,
> as I gather it is to Pirsig who is not reticent in his critique of
> science's inability to recognize, much less deal with, values.  
> 
> [Case]
> So you feel safer just taking the mystics word for it when they say they
> have plugged into the ultimate nature or reality.

Feel safer? My safety is not the issue. I leave that to the police and 
the military. 

> Or having had such
> experiences are you confident that you understand their True meaning and
> significance?

What is the "true meaning" and "significance" of any experience?

> What meaning can a solitary event have?

The solitary events of  the creation of the universe, life and your 
particular birth have plenty of meaning don't you think, like the fact 
that you are asking about meaning? 

> Who claims to have
> a monopoly on Truth?

Many science types do, and I haven't seen you accept any truth other 
than what would pass scientific "tests." But, I could be wrong about 
the latter. 

> I guess the current administration believes it can
> manufacture truth but consumers seem to be disturbed by the aftertaste
> and the odor it acquires with extended shelf life.

Ah, enter politics. I'll pass for now.

> Does legitimizing
> anthropomorphism advance understanding or merely invite sloppy thinking?

Slopping thinking? Seems you have some criteria of truth after all. 
Pray tell, what might they be if not based on assumptions of science?

Platt