[Krimel] True enough. At least with Pirsig there is a standard that we can point toward. I think my real frustration stems from the fact that it gets bandied about here in all sorts of ways that don't make much sense. From it having something to do with sentence structure to being a catch all from whatever someone doesn't like, to being something akin to "common sense" that we need to just get over.
>From my own "complex Descartes" view, any move past solipsism requires some kind of leap of faith. I think this is true however we cast the nature of our own experience and the nature of "other minds"; as being derived from an external world, as composed of ideas, as illusions spun by clever demons. Ron: You bring up some interesting points, I would think solipsism would be a Psychosis from society. I believe fundamentally human beings are social Creatures not solipsistic unless of course they are feral. My theory is that SOM is embedded in our natural language. Late Wittgenstein Arrived at a similar conclusion about how we intellectualize. Because S/O is embedded in our natural language creating our natural intellect, It would only seem natural to perceive reality in this way. But how then do Other cultures not recognize or not feel this distinction is of any Importance? Are they not as intelligent or do they simply define Experience differently?. How then do we Qualify SOM as AN intellectual Pattern instead of how Bo does as THE intellectual pattern.? How does SOM fit into your interpretation of MoQ? 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/
