Hey John, Maybe you got off on the wrong foot with your analysis. Bo has never claimed that SOM is intellect as you imply in your first sentence. Rather, SOM as created and defined by Pirsig is the value of the subject-object division of reality (direct experience). If we can keep in mind that the MOQ consists of static value pattern levels plus DQ, then perhaps Bo's interpretation will be better understood.
But, maybe not. And as always, I could be wrong. Regards, Platt On 27 Feb 2010 at 7:45, John Carl wrote: Bo, Ron, Dave T, and Arlo, When words fail to get through, use CAPITALIZED WORDS. Heh. Man, So much angst over such a simple concept. Here's the thing that seems to be missing from Bo's brain. SOM isn't intellect, it's the idea, or assertion that intellect is the basis of everything. The MoQ counters that metaphysical stance with the stance that says Quality is the center of all that is, the generator of intellect, the creator of objectification - we think intellect is all because that's where we live, breathe and have our being. But there's obviously more to the picture than intellectual objectivity, as illustrated by many great thinkers throughout history. Intellectual objectivity is asinine by itself. Haven't we been over this a hundred times in a hundred ways? 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/md/archives.html
