Hi Bo, All What I'm seeing in the exchange quoted below is a lot of difference in view of what SOM is. I've started a new thread here to see what if we can clarify.
I think if SOM mostly in terms of subjective/objective knowledge distinctions while you see it as symbol/what is symbolized. Can others provide evidence of what Pirsig means by subject-object metaphysics? Thanks, Steve Steve: >> Solving equations algebraically is also normally considered >> intellectual activity yet contains no subjects and objects. > Bo: > The symbols are subject(ive) what they symbolize are object(tive) > - even if abstracts - quantities, functions etc.. The rules of how to > manipulate these symbols may be more complicated than adding > or subtracting (I never mastered it) but principally the same as > moving stones on the ground or "beads" on an abacus, > something humankind has done for aeons, it just never occurred > to them that these were "symbols that stood for something else". > >> Steve: >> Quality is reality and the MOQ is a theory. I don't see >> any fault with saying so. > Bo: > Except that this is SOM under a thin MOQ guise. > >> Steve: >> I don't see a necessity of SOM thinking in distinguishing symbols and >> what they symbolize. > Bo: > Sure, you can say "no" to anything I say, but something as plainly > SOM as "symbols/what's symbolized" I can hardly think of. > Steve: >> SOM is the western philosophical tradition. It is not all the world's >> thought. SOM is an issue of making subjective/objective knowledge and >> appearance/reality distinctions. > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
