Bo, I think you are right, intellectual debate using symbolic langauge in e-mail is SOMist. The e-mails are just more menu, less (objective) reality, whereas the true realty is the whole participative quality of the understanding and the understood together.
The dichotomous menu / reality debate ... focussing on their distinction is the GOF-SOMist way of looking things. Ian On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:29 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian! > > 14 Nov. you wrote: > >> This is a great thread folks ... I've read about 40% of the >> contributions. Just wanted to express a couple of angles ... Earlier >> ... the historical angle is the common basis to find agreement with Bo >> (I hadn't checked out the Comte connection, but it's credible) > > I believe it was Woods who asked if I had read Comte, regrettably I > haven't the time to follow reading hints, but if Woods would tell about > his bearing on the MOQ. > >> Later ... throughout history the menu and the meal have co-evolved >> cyclically ... the menu described the best understanding of the food >> and the understanding of the food determined what was descibed on the >> menu. > > The menu/food analogy is a variant of the map/terrain one. On page > 103 in LILA Pirsig takes the metaphysic=map as granted and just > speaks about the the SOM map and the MOQ map as different > projections (the earth is round and no flat map can fully represent it > beyond a certain scale) > >> We should not be surprised to find this returning to the phenomenal. >> Life the Universe and Everything (as we know it Jim) is "as we know >> it". Our knowledge of reality evolves. Probabalistic statements about >> what exists beyond what is currently "known" are just more of the >> same, mind-games, evolutionary psychology. > > And yet Ian, this is SOM or intellect. Objectivity (knowledge) vs > Subjective (mind-games). The preceding social level had no such > distinction (I won't start on that again) nor does the MOQ subscribe to > the S/O, but have relegated it the role of its highest static. Now, the > static realm is the place to be if only understood in the MOQ sense, > but for the time being we circle aimlessly around in some no-man's- > land between SOM (intellect) and the MOQ (as intellect too). > >> The circularity of the interplay between the presumed not-yet- >> understood "reality" and the "understood" reality is for me the >> clincher that we have the right model. Accepting the phenomenaly >> (perceived reality, an epistemology) does not deny the presumed >> existence of the not-yet-perceived (ontological) reality .. it is just >> an honest expression of how the two are dynamically related. > > I think the map/terrain or "understood/presumed reality" analogy is > misleading. Quality isn't the terrain with the MOQ a map - this is > merely more SOM. > > IMO > > 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/ > 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/
