Ron said to dmb: I have no argument with your quotes, they do Attack SOM they also offer solutions within the context. But it's within The context. I'm not dismissing it or explaining it away, I acknowledge It as what it is. But as long as we live in SOM culture use SOM language And intellectualize about SOM as a concept, we are trapped in SOM.
dmb says: Well, if you think we are trapped in SOM then you are certainly dismissing those quotes. Or maybe it's just that you don't quite understanding what they mean. My point here is to refute the idea that SOM and intellect are equal to each other, that we are trapped in it. Nobody denies that SOM is part of the language or culture. As I've said many times, those distinctions are useful and appropriate most of the time. The point James, Dewey and Pirsig make is simply that we ought not confuse these concepts with reality itself. These concepts have been given existential status by materialists and idealists alike. They have been reified by philosophers, made into a metaphysical reality rather than just a handy abstraction. That's the mistake. James, Dewey and Pirsig offer an alternative intellectual description that treat subjects and objects as secondary rather than primary. This is me not giving up on you. ;-) As far as I can tell, however, topos theory has nothing to do with this. _________________________________________________________________ Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008 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/
