Steve and Group
16 Dec. you wrote:
> 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.
I repeat that "symbol/what's symbolized" is just one of SOM'
many facets.
> Can others provide evidence of what Pirsig means by subject-object
> metaphysics?
We all hopefully agree that ZAMM's "Greek section" describes
the emergence, development and coming of age of SOM.
(my caps)
Anaxagoras and Parmenides had a listener named
Socrates who carried their ideas into full fruition. What is
essential to understand at this point is that until now there
was no such thing as MIND and MATTER, SUBJECT and
OBJECT, FORM and SUBSTANCE. Those divisions are
just dialectical inventions that came later.
There are surely more S/O derivatives, Mind/body, mental/
corporeal, abstract/concrete and the said symbol/what's
symbolized are obvious. One more subtle is nurture/nature but as
we know, these two never agrees on who determines mankind, so
it's typical S/O. "Soul" was Greece's contribution to Judaism that
constituted Christianity so soul/body is another dichotomy. SOM
has had an enormous influence on Western philosophy by
creating the problem (all western thinking are footnotes to Plato
they say) and has coloured all "solutions". Pirsig is the first to
have put the bell on the cat and could have been the next Plato,
but regrettably did not complete the task that Phaedrus started.
IMO
Bo
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/
