[MD] Capitalism: my experience

[David Thomas]

Bo,
  
> Why don't you advice Craig about what "devastating critique" your
> unwarped MOQ can present Galen Strawson with?

"My"  MoQ needs no "unwarping" as it is the MoQ that Pirsig proposes and
Strawson is already on record with his opinion of that. I wrote an essay
years ago about Strawson's opinion, he has yet to respond.  I did tell Craig
what I thought about his request.
 
>It's more than 
> plain that only the SOL interpretation can do that, but some "chalk
> circle" (that hypnotized hens will not cross) prevents you from making
> it out of SOM. I don't for a moment think Strawson will surrender but
> at least he has no counter-argument.
How is it that you know he has no counter-argument? Have you presented your
case to him? If you have I would like to see his response. If you haven't
all you say above is just the sound of two lips flapping.

> If you remember my reasoning how the levels control their parent, the
> intellectual level does it by making the social patterns subjects to
> OBJECTIVE  study

The intellectual level in Pirsig's MoQ expands rationality to include
"OBJECTIVE  study", "SUBJECTIVE  study", and "VALUATIVE study" of all
levels.

> This argument Strawson can't counter by intellect's standard
> accusation of being an unprovable postulate.
All metaphysics are based on "unprovable postulates". RMP's claim about the
universal nature of quality is no exception. As is DQ/SQ and many other
claims. 

>MOQ meets all 
> science's criterions of being possible to test it and it will prove itself
> again and again. But most of you (the latter-day Pirsig included) does
> not subscribe to the MOQ, but to a "Quality/Explanation" metaphysics
> and this can Strawson easily shoot down.
Perhaps you can explain what experiment "science" can set up to detect the
social pattern of value, of say love. Oh it would be nice to hear your
"scientific" theory of love too.

> You will remember that his (Strawson's) argument is that the SOM is
> a strawman and he is right regarding a SOM that says "reality is not
> quality" this is truly a strawman because the SOM says that quality
> belongs to the subjective realm.
Actually under SOM, assigning quality solely to the "subjective realm" is
mistaken interpretation. Quality has both subjective and objective
definitions:
 
1 an essential and distinguishing attribute of something or someone;
2 a degree or grade of excellence or worth;
3 a characteristic property that defines the apparent individual nature of
something.

Things are objects They have height, width, depth, weight, etc all of which
are scientifically verifiable objective qualities. An oversight RMP and
everyone else seems to make. When faced with the horns he could have just as
well said both. But he chose not to.

>Thus it's not the "Reality=Quality" postulate that counts, but the
>dynamic/static divide OF QUALITY.
Both count and both are scientifically untestable. Though one still may be
rationally justified in believing both statements.
> This enables the MOQ to "say" that the S/O distinction belongs to its
> own static realm".
Right. As an intellectual pattern of quality just like the MoQ.
>That it must be the 4th. level is obvious,
Only to you.

> DT again:
>> You laud the Dynamic in one breath, in the next shackle the MoQ into
>> an absolute, undying, unchanging, fixed set of principles, while
>> continuing to claim that what RMP put forward must be changed
>> dramatically into your SOL version. Not just funny, but giggly
>> silliness.
> 
> DQ is part of the [reality that the] MOQ [describes just] like Gravity is part
>[of reality that] of Newtons theory [describes] that P. of ZAMM so correctly
>said. 
What you are essentially saying in your uncorrected statement is that all of
the universe is contained in the text of two books written by Strawson's big
nosed drifter etc etc. Could you send me your copies I would like to see
that.

>And that the MOQ is "dynamic" impossible, its DQ/SQ arrangement is absolute.
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.

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