[MD] killing truth, again

[david buchanan]

Arlo said:
 ...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.  

dmb says:
Right, "observation" and "experience" are pretty key concepts in the metaphysical shift Pirsig is putting forth. A passage came to mind as I read your comments. This backs up the difference you're getting at, I think.
"We have been looking at that screw 'objectively.'' According to the doctrine of 'objectivity,' which is integral with traditional scientific method, what we like or don't like about that screw has nothing to do with our correct thinking. We should not evaluate what we see. We should keep our mind a blank tablet which nature fills for us, and then reason disinterestedly from the facts we observe.But when we stop and think about it disinterestedly, in terms of this stuck screw, we begin to see that this whole idea of disinterested observation is silly. Where are those facts? What are we going to observe disinterestedly? The torn slot? The immovable side cover plate? The color of the paint job? The speedometer? The sissy bar? As Poincaré would have said, there are an infinite number of facts about the motorcycle, and the right ones don't just dance up and introduce themselves. The right facts, the ones we really need, are not only passive, they are damned elusive, and we're not going to just sit back and 'observe' them. We're going to have to be in there looking for them or we're going to be here a long time. Forever. As Poincaré pointed out, there must be a subliminal choice of what facts we observe.” (ZAMM 281)