[Platt]
.. but I do know that the forms of intellect Pirsig mentions require
definition, i.e., a subject ascribing meaning to an objective symbol,
and thus within SOM.
[Arlo]
And with one fell swoop you demonstrate more profound ignorance than
I have seen in a days.
I'll repost my remediation, because you most certainly need it.
SOM = a specific metaphysical position that posits that subjects and
objects are the PRIMARY metaphysical distinction of "reality".
By your definition, since a dog can ascribe meaning to a ringing bell
it is "witihin SOM" (such horrible rhetoric too).
Language, because it makes use of what we call "subjects" and
"objects", is not therefore "SOM". Language also makes use of verbs
of action and temporal markers, and we could just as easily say that
"definition" is "within ATM" (Active-Temporal Metaphysics).
It is this gross confusion between the conventional terms "subjects"
and "objects", and the position of positing that "subjects" and
"objects" are the primary metaphysical distinction of "reality", that
keeps me wondering exactly how it is that you can be part of a
philosophy discussion group for so long and yet remain so woefully
uninformed and ignorant, unless you are making every deliberate
attempt to remain so.
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
