[MD] No non-conversational constraints on justification

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Bo,


Bo:
> The mentioned method of how the MOQ subsumes - or encases - the
> SOM is wrong IMO, the S/O distinction is contained within the
> intellectual level and all platypis goes POOF! - dissolves - by that
> realization .

Steve:
The metaphysics of Quality does not encase the metaphysics of subjects
and objects, but subjects and objects can be interpreted within the
metaphysics of Quality with the benefit of leaving behind the Platypi
you mentioned.


Bo:
Why bother with Rorty in a MOQ context?

Steve:
For the same reason that anyone bothers with anything. Because Rorty has quality

Bo:
And why his
> need for making "pragmatic sense of objectivity", doesn't he need to
> make pragmatic sense of subjectivity?

Steve:
Sure. But the Pirsig quote wasn't about that. It was about objectivity
as intersubjectivity. Subjectivity is just know-how.


Bo:
>>  [Pirsig says and Rorty would agree] "what guarantees the objectivity of the world in which we
>> live is that this world is common to us with other thinking beings.
>> Through the communications that we have with other men we receive from
>> them ready-made harmonious reasonings. We know that these reasonings
>> do not come from us and at the same time we recognize in them, because
>> of their harmony, the work of reasonable beings like ourselves. And as
>> these reasonings appear to fit the world of our sensations, we think
>> we may infer that these reasonable beings have seen the same thing as
>> we; thus it is that we know we haven't been dreaming. It is this
>> harmony, this quality if you will, that is the sole basis for the only
>> reality we can ever know."
>
> I'm disqualified in this philosophological dispute, but why bother with
> this arch-somish issue that the MOQ releases us from by rejecting
> SOM?

Steve:
Subjects and objects are not "load-bearing" terns in Pirsig's
metaphysics as they are for SOM, but that doesn't mean we can just
drop them completely. For example, it would be tough to teach grammar
without them.

Bo:
And - phew - don't you know what MOQ's theory of truth is?

Steve:
According to Ant's textbook. it is the same as the pragmatic theory of
truth. What do you think it is?

Best,
Steve