Hey Matt, nice catch. Sloppy formulation on my part.
I should have said SOM = intellectual"ism". > > You seem to be saying that you wish the levels had been > named Inorganic/Biological/Social/Consciousness, with > the top level broken into, roughly, Classic and Romantic, > as Pirsig had it in ZMM. Right? Well I'm not too happy with the "consciousness" label either. It's a tricky thing, coming up with the right names. Reality is nothing without marketing. > If that is so, then--moving > to Pirsig interpretation--you'd need to defend the notion > that in ZMM (or, in some other complicated inferential > pattern based on what he's said), Pirsig defined "classic" > as "SOM." That doesn't strike me as true, but I haven't > read ZMM in a long while (and have no complex > interpretational pattern on hand). The interpretation of > "the S/O distinction as classic" strikes me as decent, but > I'd need to know more about what you mean by > "metaphysics," Fair enough. Let's take the revised formulation, SOM = Intellectualism. Taking the classic/romantic split, and conferring all authority and primacy to the classic side, would be Objectivism or SOM. The classic intellectual makes his highest value, this Objectivity. So I guess what I mean by "metaphysics", is that which you make your highest value. I'm hoping to dive into a deeper understanding of the dialectic, as I've recently encountered it in a series of lectures by Royce in his "Concept of the Absolute". Thanks for the thoughts, Matt. John 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
