Mary to Ian: Yes, SOM is what caused Pirsig to suffer a breakdown.
Andre: No! SOM does not 'cause' anything Mary. And calling Phaedrus' experience a 'breakdown' in the traditional SOM sense (as I think you do) is missing the DQ 'force'. SOM/SOL logic divides human experience into subjects and objects. The problem is that you cannot do this. It does not cover it. This is one of the basic premises of the MOQ. This is the difference, the expansion of LILA from ZMM...the romantic/classic into DQ/sq. Phaedrus did not suffer a breakdown (in SOM terms) he had a unique DQ experience (in MOQ terms) and from this experience developed the MOQ.Remember the Indian/peyoty experience in LILA? This experience, as a pure empiricist, was a signal to Phaedrus, just as it was to William James, Dewey, Northrop et al that dividing experience into subjects and objects is not complete and therefore false. Okay, check it out for yourself! I would, imh experience say: experience for yourself...find out for yourself. My response to your statement that the MOQ arose when Phaedrus was 'steeped in SOM' is that this is not so and that Phaedrus was steeped in Quality, Mary. Looking at it from this point of view makes much more sense to me than this silly MOQ out of SOL/SOM diversion. We are discussing the MOQ from the MOQ perspectives and not from the single minded SOL pattern! I will simply suggest that you experience for yourself and if this does not agree with the MOQ well talk. 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
