[MD] Capitalism: my experience

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Dave T.

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

DT: 
> "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.

Pirsig proposes and allows many interpretation and regarding the 
intellectual level (which is and remains the crux ) he has come a long 
way from the "thinking intellect" (that you and Magnus subscribes to) 
but as you prove deaf and blind to this development its useless as 
forcing an ass to move.   

> 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.

It was Craig who asked for "ammo" I have no way to address 
Strawson.

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

OK I know about everything being an intellectual development (in 
SOMish: everything inside mind) .

> 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. 

As said there there were no world view before the MOQ that 
postulated that Quality was NOT reality, it was SOM that said that 
values were subjective, thus the Quality=Reality postulate is not 
merely unprovable it's meaningless. While the postulate that DQ/SQ is 
Reality is provable in the sense of dissolving all SOM paradoxes and 
that one may apply it to everything with great success.     

> 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.

It sounds like you envisage a physics experiment with white-frocked 
people in front of math-filled blackboards and/or in the CERN 
"collider", but science is all "logies".  

> Actually under SOM, assigning quality solely to the "subjective
> realm" is mistaken interpretation. Quality has both subjective and
> objective definitions:

Of course relegating qualities to the subjective realm is mistaken 
because the S/O distinction is METAPHYSICALLY invalid! But as a 
static level it's  valuable and has given us modernity, and the MOQ will 
be a disaster if the S/O is not kept as its highest static good. 

> 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.

You expect anyone to understand this?  

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

DT
> 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.

MOQ's "DQ/SQ" split has nothing to do with SOM's "subject/object" 
one. Another thing, yes, SOM that have given up on "objects", but it 
has not given up on "objectivity" - these two must be kept apart - 
physics (f.ex.) would not keep on making hypothesis and testing them 
if the objectivity rug was pulled from under them. This is what the SOL 
preserves. 

Bodvar