Hi dmb,

I am a little slow.  Could you give me a definition for SOM?  The shorter
the better, and I won't read between the lines.  I may be operating under
false premises.  If that is not possible, please direct me to a web site
that does.

Thanks,
Mark

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:15 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote:

>
> Marsha said to Dan:
> In Anthony's PhD it states that science, theology, mathematics and
> philosophy are intellectual quality patterns. So here's my understanding of
> the Intellectual Level: ...Intellectual patterns process from a
> subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the
> illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.”  The
> fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount
> demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of
> any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order
> to pursue study and research in an unbiased and rational manner.
>
>
> Dan replied:
> You almost had me. I actually thought you might be getting it. But then you
> have to throw a monkey wrench into the works and foul it all up. Where in
> Anthony's work does it say the intellectual level is a formalized SOM?
> Anywhere? Or are you like Bo, just picking and choosing what you agree with?
> Maybe you and John and get together and relive the old times.   Why do I
> bother?
>
>
> dmb says:
> Let us pause for a moment to consider Marsha's spectacularly bad reasoning
> skills.
>
> First, we have Ant's dissertation telling us that science, theology, math
> and philosophy all count as intellectual patterns. Surely this means that
> each of them would be a subset within the larger intellectual level.
> Subject-object metaphysics is certainly not the only philosophical stance.
> (And as we all know, rejecting SOM is central to the MOQ, not to mention
> other anti-SOM philosophers like James and Dewey.) So SOM is a subset of a
> subset of the intellectual level.
>
> Let's use "modes of transportation" as an analogy. In this analogy Ant's
> quote says that planes, trains and automobiles are modes of transportation.
> Marsha then reasons that "modes of transportation" is defined as a Ford
> truck. This is just a spectacularly bad category error. It's the kind of bad
> logic that says 15% of the total is equal to the total. There is no way to
> make that add up. Imagine a painting bigger than the gallery it hangs in.
> Imagine taking that analytic knife away from Phaedrus and telling him there
> is only one way to carve up reality.
>
> Imagine an very unskilled person got a hold of that knife and used it to
> cut off her own hands. I mean, even if the reasoning were sound, the
> consequences would be a complete disaster. If subject-object metaphysics
> were equal to the entire intellectual level then no other metaphysics could
> be possible. If that equation were true, then the MOQ would not be possible
> and this discussion group would be quite pointless. If we accept Marsha's
> conclusion, then the MOQ is defined as the very stance it rejects and it
> can't really serve as an alternative SOM and Pirsig's root expansion of
> rationality is doomed to end in failure before it ever starts. If SOM is the
> enemy and SOM is the intellectual level, then intellect is the enemy. Then
> science, theology, mathematics and philosophy are the enemy. The consequence
> is anti-intellectualism and intellectual paralysis.
>
> Marsha's reasoning is spectacularly bad and the consequences of her
> conclusions are even worse. It is a tour de farce of staggering stupidity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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

Reply via email to