On 20/12/2007, Steven Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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/
>
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/
