> Hi Bo,
>> I don't see why this distinction is an SOM product that we'd like to >> dissolve. I don't think it is JUST one of SOM's many facets for you. >> It seems to be the basis of equating intellect with SOM. > > I wonder why you regard "symbol/what's symbolized" as special, > but for now. > I think I agree that intellect requires a symbol/what's symbolized distinction but disagree that this distinction is equivalent to S/O. >> Here are a couple quotes concerning what Pirsig means by SOM: > >> In the SOM conception “…the universe is composed of subjects and >> objects and anything that can't be classified as a subject or an >> object isn't real.” > > "Objects" in the "substance" sense isn't all of SOM, the adjective > form is part of it, and in the most subtle ways, as in "an objective > fact" where the fact may be an abstract. The below is from LILA. > page 45 (digital) I agree that subjective/objective knowledge distinctions are a direct product of thinking of the universe as composed of only subjects and objects. > > (Steve) >> “A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the >> first division of Quality-the first slice of undivided experience-is >> into subjects and objects. Once you have made that slice, all of >> human experience is supposed to fit into one of these two boxes. The >> trouble is, it doesn't.” > > (Bo) > This (involuntarily) demonstrates that the opening move of > Reality=Quality that can be split in arbitrary ways - the MOQ just > one possibility - is invalid. Quality split the S/O way is just as > "bad" as ordinary SOM. In other words, the opening move is > Reality=DQ/SQ! (inside the MOQ intellect splits Quality the S/O > way, but that's a static value) Pirsig demonstrates that dq/sq works better as a first cut than s/o, but doesn't suppose that this is the one true way of doing it and nothing better will ever come along. > >> Steve: >> These derivatives seem to refer to the problems of western philosophy >> that Pirsig called Platypi: > > “In a subject-object classification of the world, Quality is in > the same situation as that platypus. Because they can't > classify it the experts have claimed there is something > wrong with it. And Quality isn't the only such platypus. > Subject-object metaphysics is characterized by herds of > huge, dominating, monster platypi." > >> I disagree that "symbol/symbolized" is this sort of philosophical >> platypus. This seems to be an important point that you'd like to make >> in order to equate the intellectual level with SOM. What is the >> problem with distinguishing symbols and their referrants that the MOQ >> solves? In what way is symbol/symbolized inherently based on an >> assumption that "the universe is composed of subjects and objects and >> anything that can't be classified as a subject or an object isn't >> real"? > > The SOM has much subtler S/O pairs. In ZAMM the development > of SOM is seen from Socrates' Opinion/Truth to Plato's > Appearance/Ideas and Aristotle's Form/Substance, but Pirsig > spotted the SOM under all these phases. So I see no objection to > the symbol/what's symbolized as an advanced S/O ...that has > created its own platypus, namely the language/reality one. > Can you explain how "symbol/what's symbolized" is a result of seeing the world as composed only of subjects and objects or of making subjective/objective knowledge distinctions? If you want to put them in S/O terms, the symbol and what's symbolized sound like objects to me. Thanks, Steve 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/
