[MD] expanded rationality

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[Marsha]
There it is: "all knowledge is hypothetical". 

Arlo]
Interesting hypothesis... 

[Mark]
If it is a hypothesis, how do you go about proving it?


[Arlo]
I was aiming at the inherent recursion here. In the spirit of Pirsig, once its said that "all knowledge is hypothetical", that statement itself becomes knowledge and is, hence, hypothetical. Its the same as "all this is an analogy". Of course it is, including that statement. This is the boundary point of incompleteness, the point where sufficiently powerful representative systems become self-referential.

I'm not arguing against Marsha, here, of course, any more than I'd argue against Pirsig's "all this is an analogy". I'm merely adding the first of an infinite loop of recursion to that, and to me that is the key to understanding the limits and power of semiosis.

And, I'd say, so much here depends on what you mean by "prove". It sounds very objectivist to me, or maybe you mean it as a subjectivist "consensus", I don't know. I'd say the "proof" is in empirical application. If we begin with this premise, does it improve our experiences? This was where Pirsig realized that accepting "all this in an analogy" opened up the door to a whole new way of understanding experience, an improved way...