Pardon me, Stevenson. I've got a kind of mind-setting trouble call
I try to make truth of my words, on dinamic quality, even when a most
appreciated one talk (and especially) in group.
My appologies. Please, David, Sheilla "Peter" and Margareth - forgive my bad
manners.
i seem to only do harm to myself and foolishly give the impression I don't
appreciate your. Under "Fantasy and Reality", my main foot seem to be on
"Fantasy" : )
Pleae forgive me any "Incident". It's sometimes difficult to express
myself. i
wish there wer some smart Brazilian theorist in this discussion.
Yours,
Fernando Farah
----- Mensagem de [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------
Data: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:17:04 -0800
De: Steven Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Endereço para Resposta (Reply-To): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Assunto: Re: [MD] What is SOM?
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi Bo,
>
> Bo said:
>> Steve you are an "oldie" around this place and must remember
>> my countless references to the "Oxford Advanced" (Eighteenth
>> impression 1985) ISBN 0 194311066 6) that says:
>>
>> "Power of the mind to reason, contrasted with feeling and
>> instinct."
>
> Steve:
> This is the sort of definition that I kept coming across that I
> couldn't see as suggesting subjective/objective knowledge
> distinctions.
>
>
> Bo:
>> "Power of the mind" we may disregard for what is not power of
>> mind?
>
> Steve:
> I would say organic, biological, and social patterns as well as DQ
> are not power of mind.
>
>
> Bo:
> (I'll rather say power of intelligence) REASON is the arch-
>> objective feature and FEELING the arch-subjective ditto. So the
>> power/ability to distinguish between the two looks very much how
>> the said dictionary defines "intellect".
>>
>> I know that other dictionaries defines "intellect" less SOL-like and
>> more SOM-like; the ability to think, as MIND for short.
>
> Steve:
> Okay, now I see why you view that definition as support for the SOL.
>
> I just don't agree with your premise that reason implies objectivity
> and feeling and instinct imply subjectivity.
>
>
>
>>> Bo:
>>> > ..most people at this discussion are
>>> > somists in spite of using MOQ terminology
>>
>>> Steve:
>>> What do you mean by somists? Am I one?
>
> Bo:
>> Well, like I say, they talk a lot about Quality, mostly the dynamic
>> kind - which sounds like a state of being. They also present the
>> (static) intellectual level as dynamic, as some empty vessel that
>> was filled by a bad pattern called SOM and under its yoke for
>> millenniums, but - now - may be have the MOQ as its top
>> content, ignoring the fact that this violates the MOQ. There are
>> no "bad" patterns inside any level, it's from the higher level the
>> good/bad comes in.
>
> Steve:
> I don't think that's true. The hot stove example demonstrates "bad"
> within the biological level without a social or intellectual judgment.
>
>
> Bo:
>> Treating the MOQ as an intellectual pattern
>> that remains comfortably within intellect makes for a somist.
>
> Then I guess I am an SOMist in your book, but then so is Pirsig.
>
> Personally I wouldn't call anyone an SOMist who is interested in
> seeing where Pirsig's Experience=Quality postulate takes us.
>
> 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/
>
----- Final da mensagem de [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----
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/
