Hi Steve
18 Feb. you wrote:
> Which came first? Subjects and objects or SOM?
> Bo proposes that intellect originates with a distinction between
> symbol and what is symbolized. I agree that such a distinction is
> important and is presupposed in most intellectual patterns, but is
> this all we mean by SOM?
It's about time that this questions is raised (I change the thread)
after ten years! Thanks to Christoffer people begin to understand
that the SOL idea isn't just this madman's dream, but may be the
MOQ's very core.
> SOM is a metaphysics that says that subjects and objects is all that
> reality really is....
SOM isn't just the platitudinous "subjects and objects", but the
countless varieties of subjectivity in contrast to objectivity. No
one regards (for instance) the four forces (gravity, the weak and
strong nuclear f.s and electro-magnetism) as objects, but they
surely are objective.
> ... Thinking in terms of subjects and objects must naturally precede
> such philosophizing about the nature of reality.
Thinking as different from what thinking is about a is part of
SOM. To see this point more clearly one must hark back to the
time when the 3rd, level ruled. In the letter to P.Turner Pirsig
says:
But if one studies the early books of the Bible or if one
studies the sayings of primitive tribes today, the
intellectual level is conspicuously absent. The world is
ruled by Gods who follow social and biological patterns
and nothing else.
(my complaint is why not say that SOM is "conspicuously absent)
Nowhere in the early books of the Bible, or in any other ancient
texts, do you find references to "thinking". It did in earnest not
occur until Descartes so it's a most recent S/O fallout.
> In other words, S/O thinking is not the same as S/O metaphysics (SOM).
This is the intelligence=intellect fallacy. As said, somewhere on
the biological level, brains developed to a point where former
experience could be stored (RAM) and retrieved and manipulated
in an "if so then .." fashion. All as images, no language yet, but
intelligence nevertheless, animals can be uncannily smart. The
social level transformed everything biological into social value
and when language arrived on the scene the manipulation of
stored experience was even more easy performed and it became
"thinking" in the well known inner dialogue sense. Yet not known
as such because the social level knows no S/O distinction, the
inner-silent dialogue was (possibly) at first perceived as gods
talking to them (Julian Jaynes' theory) Well not to make this an
essay only with the intellectual level did the subject/object split
open up and the rest is history. Intellect did the same trick as all
static levels, namely regard everything as own value and now the
said "manipulation of experience" became THINKING different
from the objects (of thinking) and the honorable Steve Peterson
is now absolutely sure that .....S/O thinking is not the same as
S/O metaphysics (SOM) ... and it isn't at the SOM, but the MOQ
isn't SOM, nor is it an intellectual pattern. INTELLECT IS A MOQ
PATTERN!
Enough!
Bo
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/
