Hi Arlo,
Just to be clear...
"Pirsig uses the term ‘subject-object metaphysics’ (SOM) for any metaphysics
(explicitly or implicitly) that perceives reality as either mind and/or matter
such as idealism, materialism, and dualism. "
(MoQ Textbook)
On Dec 29, 2010, at 2:13 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:
> [Platt]
> No matter how you slice it, the intellectual level (described by Pirsig as
> manipulation of abstract symbols) presumes the subject/object division and is
> thus the SOL.
>
> [Arlo]
> SOM is a metaphysical position that posits that the PRIMARY division of
> reality
> is S/O. You continue to confuse the "subjects" and "objects" of grammar with a
> metaphysical stance.
>
> Pirsig was right. Bo quite wrong.
>
> But, here's another chance going into the new year. If Bo's MOQ is better than
> Pirsig's MOQ, please explain to me how? Do you think it has more explanatory
> power? Solves problems better? Explain to me why I should find Bo's ideas to
> be
> of a higher Quality than Pirsig's? What do they offer that Pirsig's does not?
>
___
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
