Platt to 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. Ron: If S/O division of reality is direct experience, as you state above, it conflicts with the ZMM conclusion that value is direct experience and S/O division is a culturally dominant idea. If S/O is indeed reality (direct experience) then why would we change our "metaphysical" assumptions based on it since it would then theoretically cover all of direct experience? why switch from SOM to MoQ? Platt But it doesn't cover "all of direct experience" as Pirsig clearly states. It doesn't cover value. S/O constricts direct experience to subjects and objects. MOQ corrects that nearsightedness. Ron: How does MoQ account for value if S/O is intellect How do values emerge out of a valueless intellectual level? 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 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
