Steve 16 Nov. you wrote:
> Long time no see. I hope you are well. Considering my age .... I had said: > > 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). Steve: > In Pirsig's MOQ, SOM and the the MOQ itself are menus not food or > maps not terrain. We don't need to circle around aimlessly, we can > choose the map we prefer. I see you haven't grown in wisdom while absent ;-) I have commented this so often that I'm hard pressed to find a new angle. But if you noticed Marsha inadvertently revealed the issue. She thinks that SOM's: "our senses an subjective reflection of the objective reality" corresponds to MOQ's static/dynamic dichotomy. I think THAT says it. > The distinction is between experience and two different intellectual > descriptions of experience. Your menu/food confusion is due to the > fact that you do not view the MOQ as the MOQ describes itself, as an > intellectual pattern. What will escape being intellectual descriptions by this criterion. It resembles Ron's about everything written about, thought about, spoken about is "intellectual", this makes experience - dynamic such - intellectual. 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/
