Hi Peter,
>I can't pretend to understand all the subtleties of Bo's pronouncements. He >speaks with surety but often says things that I can't quite get my head >around, sometimes I think I have understood him and find I disagree, other >times I am persuaded by his explanations. > >I agree with you and Bo that symbol activity, or signification, is at all >levels. I quoted Thomas Sebeok to Bo; since I like the quote so much I'll >give the rest of it too now: > >'The world is composed entirely of signs, and therefore, I think of the >whole world as my oyster; whereas for some people only the human world, and >then only a small portion of that, is their oyster.' Steve: I disagree that there is symbol manipulation at all levels. I think it is intellectual only. Peter: >Most usage of signs though is not deliberate, or rather below the level of >consciousness, whereas I think of symbol manipulation as a more deliberate >usage of signs, perhaps using symbols that refer to other symbols, or in >programming even treating a function or algorithm as an object. Steve: This deliberate use of signs sounds like intellect. Peter: >I just had a look at the wikipedia entry for 'metaphysics' and after reading >the first paragraph thought that the meaning of that word could be condensed >down to mean 'beyond matter'. Subject Object Metaphysics, our SOM, is a >philosophical talking point; perhaps something that can only be done by >intellectuals. Steve: agree Peter: >Logic is the manipulation of subjects and objects. Steve: Pirsig described logic as an intellectual pattern that codifies rules that help produce other high quality intellectual patterns. Peter: >Thinking >is done by making logical inferences. Perhaps SOM could stand with equal >legitimacy for Subject Object Manipulation and would still amount to the >same thing as our usual SOM. > >Clearly,it's still all quite vague for me! Steve: I only resubscribed to the list recently and I'm not sure where you are coming from. It sounds like you are struggling with understanding the MOQ, but I don't know what the issues are for you. I would be glad to help with any of your questions. It took me along time to understand what Pirsig is saying partly becasue of what some of the dominant voices on the list are saying about it. I have a lot of respect for Bo and Platt. I doubt this discussion group would still exist without them. However, they both have agendas to push modifications of Pirsig's MOQ, so I would be careful about relying on them to explain what Pirsig is saying. If I were you, I would seek answers to your questions that include direct quotes of Pirsig. I would check out Pirsig's annotations to Lila's Child because about every issue that is still discussed here today was discussed in LC and commented on by RMP himself. Let me know if you have any questions and I will do my best to help. 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/
