On 29 Jun 2010 at 13:22, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > [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.
]Platt] Like I need a hole in the head > 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). [Platt] Such stupidity. As if a ringing bell is a symbol, and as if a dog knows a symbol from what it refers to. > 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. [Platt] Bonehead rhetoric. 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
