Hi All, I wish certain people would take seriously the distinction that Pirsig made in the following quote from LC between subjects and objects as grammatical terms and subjects and objects as ontological kinds. If they did, we wouldn't have all this intellect= SOM nonsense to deal with. Talking about subjects and objects is only SOM when subjects and objects are given ontological status as the fundamental stuff composing reality.
RMP: "Yes, it’s clear I’ve been of two minds on whether subjects and objects should be included in the MOQ. My earlier view, when I was concentrating on the confusion of subject-object thinking, was to get rid of them entirely to help clarify things. Later I began to see it’s not necessary to get rid of them because the MOQ can encase them neatly within its structure—the upper two levels being subjective, and the lower two, objective. Still later I saw that the subject-object distinction is very useful for sharply distinguishing between biological and social levels. If I had been more careful in my editing I would have eliminated or modified the earlier statements to bring them into agreement with the latter ones. However I missed these and it’s valuable that the Lila Squad has caught them. The main danger to the MOQ from subject-object thinking at present seems to be when it tries in a conventional way to encase values and declare them to be either objects or thoughts. That was the attempt of the professors in Bozeman in ZMM that started this whole MOQ. At present, I don’t see that the terms “subject” and “object” need to be dropped, as long as we remember they are just levels of value, not expressions of independent scientific reality." Best, Steve 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
