[MD] Capitalism: my experience

[David Thomas]

Bo,
[DT before]
>> 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
[Bo before]
> 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. 

Read Bo read. I said "given up on absolute objectivity" not "given up on
objects."  If you would read something more current than 200 year old Kant
you might find out that the current discussions in science are moving it
closer and closer to James/RMP's position that "truth is a species of good."
Currently "objectivity" in science is understood to be more "provisional" in
nature, rarely if ever claiming "proven theories" to be universally and
absolutely true forever and always. Physics is quite comfortable with make
conjectural statements (theories) about the nature of reality knowing full
well that after experimenting some,none,all, or just a little bit will be
verified. This is what the whole process of science is about.  And five
years from now that which is currently "true" could well be false. Hell
there are at least four or five contending theories for quantum mechanics
right now. And they all maybe verified as partially true/false at sometime
in the future . So the problem is not science's but your misunderstanding of
it's current condition.

>> 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)

When have I (or Magnus for that matter) claimed that "everything [is] inside
the mind"? How can intellectual patterns that are products of human social
groups be "inside a mind"? To the contrary the reason I have argued that
"intellect" and "intellectual level" are distinctly different is to make
clear that intellectual patterns ARE NOT PATTERNS OF THE MIND. They are
records, artifacts, of critically rational dialogues between human beings
trying to find out what is good in the way to believe.

Dave