Hi Peter, >Guys, if you are not satisfied with this then how do you account for >intuition and mystical experience? perhaps you explain them as ethereal >dynamic quality entering directly into the brain; top-down straight into the >intellect? I am sure you see such a view would be SOM based.
I've never had an experience that I would classify as mystical. In MOQ terms I think of it as referring to dynamic quality in some way. I do think that there is an underlying validity to religion in that I think something significant really did happen to Moses on that mountain or Jesus in the desert or Paul on the road to Damascus or Siddhartha under the whatever tree and Pirsig has done more than anyone else I've read to describe opr explain it as in his "break down" in ZAMM. >Steve, subjects and objects don't necessarily have to align with mind and >matter. Take the short sentence that Pinker mentioned also in that same >book: 'Bummer'! The implied subject refers to some awful event that has >occurred, the implied object is the person to whom the said awful event has >occurred. Steve, I think you are right that SOM's dualistic view of the >world as composed of mind and matter, God and the World, substantial and >insubstantial pose unresolvable philosophical problems, but that is a >different issue to symbol manipulation, subject object logic that I have >been talking about. I think you may be right to say that language is usually S/O in nature. The rules of grammar require subjects and objects in sentences. But in poetry the same symbols are manipulated often without subjects and objects. Math "sentences" (equations) have to subjects and objects. But this is even beside the point that Bo wants to make with his SOL. It seems like you are not really agreeing with him. You are saying something quite different. He's not argiuing that symbol manipulation is S/O and so intellect is S/O as you are. He is saying that symbol manipulation happens at all levels and is a bad way to define intellect and that intellect comes about when we start making subjective/objective knowledge distinctions. I agree with Bo that the key to SOM is it's subjective/objective knowlegde distinctions, but I don't see such distinctions as inherent in language or intellect. Regards, 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/
