[MD] killing truth, again

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[DMB]
But you already know this. You're just showing the trolls what an actual conversation would look like. Thanks for that.

[Arlo]
Well not entirely :-)...

Backup: I've had some recent conversations that have left me thinking that when I've been using the word "experience" some people (not here) hear "observation". And it made me realize that I need to be careful when talking outside of other people's metaphysical perspectives that when a word is 'shared' it can lead to false agreement. So I've been rethinking how I say things that foreground 'experience' not as a passive, observational response, but as an active, lived moment. 

Tangental Tie-in: I've also be working an activity theoretical response to the learning theory notion of 'conceptual change', and have been drawing on Vygotsky's notions of 'knowledge' ('everyday' versus 'scientific'), as well as broader socio-cultural works (such as Gal'perin's ideas on systemic-theoretical instruction) and, of course, Pirsig and Dewey.

So, a part of this became evaluating 'scientific knowledge' (in Vygotskian language) as Pirsig's 'intellectual patterns of value' based on (as you have said) "explanatory power or predictive power" in the context of affordances to human agency. That is, emphasizing the connection to lived experience-as-activity (Pirsig/Dewey) rather than an abstract/passive experience-as-observation (Vygotsky cautioned that scientific knowledge that became detached from human activity becomes reduced to what he calls "verbalism"). 

I know I'm not saying anything new to you, this was an audience unfamiliar with these concepts, so if it seems "101" here, keep in mind I'm only giving you context.

So, I was asking because I wanted to make sure that my tying "affordances/agency" as a component to pragmatic truth, and that evaluations as high/low quality of these patterns based, in part, on affordances/agency was (at least in this context) okay. 

But you're welcome anyway :-).