[MD] Krimel vs dmb

[Krimel]

dmb,
A couple of times you have attempted to pinpoint some critical fulcrum or
point of balance over which our differences teeter. Psychology versus
philosophy, materialism versus radical empiricism (which in your formulation
of it, I take to be nothing more than idealism) or as I have tended to see
it romanticism versus classicism. I found another useful way to characterize
our differences in a book on communication theory by Em Griffin. He talks
about two kind of theorizing: objective and interpretive. 

"The separate worldviews of interpretive scholars and scientists reflect
contrasting assumptions about ways of arriving at knowledge, the core of
human nature, questions of value, the very purpose of theory and methods of
research."

I freely admit to leaning heavily on the scientific method. This, for
reasons I have covered with you in exhaustive detail over the years.
Essentially while I do not think "science" provides a full account of
meaning, I think any account of meaning that ignores science or runs counter
to it, is worthless. Pirsig's account of evolution for example. Likewise,
your own fledgling attempts to use Bolte-Taylor and Damasio. 

Our frequent battles in which you accuse me of reductionism or SOM or where
you rail against a correspondence theory of truth I think reveal a telling
lack of insight on your part. For example, while certainly a pure
correspondence theory gives an inadequate account of "truth," no theory that
offers an account that runs counter to our observations or has no relation
whatever to them deserves to be taken seriously. Theories that have no
possible perceivable consequence, that can't be tested for an observable
consequences also seem to me to fail in this respect. Wilber's claim that
Spirit must precede the Big Bang for example. Or take reductionism; which I
fully agree cannot provide a sufficient account of very much; certainly does
provide an account of the necessary conditions from which a sufficient
account make proceed. 

Whichever the sets of poles we cast ourselves in, you and I take opposite
positions, (romantic/classic, objective/interpretive...). But it seems to me
the whole point of Pirsig and James is to seek some kind of synthesis.
Understanding how to keep your motorcycle running is suppose to the enhance
your ability to enjoy the quality of the ride. Appreciating the beauty of
the rainbow should stimulate an active curiosity as to how and why it
shimmers. 

As you have pointed out before, we do have very specific differences of
opinion on the MoQ, the meaning of its terms and the conceptions of
experience that it allows. Your contention that the terms Quality and DQ are
equal for example grates on my nerves as obviously absurd. I'm sure my
insistence that DQ means uncertainty and SQ means certainty must grate on
yours. 

-------------------------------------------------
Note: This BTW, is the essence of my understanding 
      of the MoQ. I have tap danced around it since 
      my first post here but I understand the MoQ 
      as stating:

1. Shit Happens.
2. Quality is Chaos
3. Quality (Chaos) has two aspects DQ (uncertainty) 
   SQ (certainty)
4. Value (meaning) is reduction of uncertainty.  
   (That is, meaning results from and results in, 
   our ability to create and manipulate static quality) 
5. Biological organisms are the meaning that evolution 
   derives from chaos.
6. As such organisms, we derive meaning from chaos 
7. We are beings that create SQ from the DQ around us
   or to use James' terms, We derive concepts from 
   experience

Or, simplistically speaking, something like that...
------------------------------------------------

I recently voiced support for the points Dave Thomas raised as failures of
the current conception of the MoQ. About all that I disagreed with was his
pessimism that the whole business is irredeemable. But then I have never
seen the MoQ the way you do. I think my version places it in a much better
position to play a part in the intellectual revolution that Pirsig
foreshadowed. That revolution is well underway by the way from Mandelbrot,
Shannon and Nash in mathematics; Ekman, Damasio, Ariely in psychology, Taleb
in economic, Wolfram and Kurzweil in future studies to name a few.

But that's just me...




Oddly in light of that objective versus interpretive continuum I find myself
headed in a surprising direction. Despite your claim that I am hopelessly
obstinate in my views, in about a week I will be entering a completely new
phase of my "career" (a "career" BTW that has been fraught with radical
changes in direction) I will be entering the Communication program at the
University of South Florida. By my count that makes three of us; you, Matt
and I who will be currently pursuing advanced degrees. I believe Ant, Arlo
and Mati are already ensconced in the ivory tower. While I doubt that this
move will contribute much to a resolution of our differences, I think my
choice of this program and the reasons for it illustrate in many ways how
you have misjudged my positions.

About three years ago I returned to the field of academic psychology as an
instructor at the local community college. Obviously this renewed interest
in a field I had mostly abandoned for 30 years has colored my posts here
ever since. The moment I entered the classroom to teach that first session
three years ago, I fell in love. I loved studying the subject, I loved the
students in my class, I loved preparing my lectures. At the time I recorded
most of them and in offline correspondences with Marsha I made them
available for her to listen to as "podcasts". She claimed to enjoy them and
while I make no pretentions as to their "quality" but I think something of
my enthusiasm must have come through.

My position for the past three years has been full time but temporary. As
soon as I took it I began thinking in terms of a return to school to get a
Ph.D. in the hope of enhancing my possibilities for a permanent position. I
looked at various online program and ironically the one I considered most
seriously was something in transpersonal psychology at the California
Institute for Integral Studies. I thought about studying under Alan Combs of
"Wilber-Combs" matrix fame. I ultimately gave up in this when I saw Combs on
TV seriously suggesting that telepsychic John Edwards really does have
supernatural powers.

USF is close to home put the psychology program wants full time students
involved in full time research projects and that didn't fit my needs. I also
looked at their philosophy program but they require two languages that I
don't know and don't care to learn. The Communication program on the other
hand claimed to be interdisciplinary and would let you study pretty much
whatever you choose to study. I took a course in Semiotics last Fall and
decided to apply. Against all expectation they not only accepted my but
invited me to come full time on a Graduate Fellowship. 

In the continuum of objective versus interpretive, the department is heavily
skewed toward interpretative. In fact some the main people in the department
have been key in developing the field of autoethnography which is a direct
response to some of the kinds of criticisms of anthropology, or in this case
sociology, that Pirsig levels in Lila. They are attempting to construct a
new genre of social science writing that includes the qualitative
perceptions of the researcher.

While I seriously doubt that emersion in this environment will ultimately
make me more sympathetic to what I regard as your wooly headed analysis, who
can say. I originally entered graduate school 30 years ago as something of a
mystic and emerged as a behaviorist. Perhaps the reverse will happen at this
late stage. I rather hope not but I think this should illustrate that with
my deeds, if not so much with my words on this forum, I do try to remain
open in my thinking. 

All this is to say that I will be bac