Eh, what about the four levels explanation. THAT certainly addresses preconceptual patterns of value. By the definition of SOM, that could be lumped in with it.
I think what we need to clarify is how these theories are conceptualized. SOM is described as a kind of rationalization drawn from a reification of acquired concepts. The SOM we tend to push against is an objective realism. What we experience is what is really there to be experienced. But, Pragmatism differs by saying what we really experience is a kind of short hand for what is really there. Its generalized, simplified and colored by culture and personal history. What is really there, or what really IS is experience and we cant really rightly or accurately say or theorize exactly anything about that pushing back against our concepts but make no mistake, there is a pushing back and to ignore it is to suffer consequences in experience. Its what makes one concept better than another. What makes objectivism so damn "practicle" so successful and sadly so lethal is Its belief of that pre-conceptual armeture we hang our concepts on. Its what makes Pragmatic truths verifyable. Not addressing this philosophical question leads to a conflict inour explanation in regard to how MoQ ties into the concept of evolution. Now to say we sink back to SOM when we begin to theorize beyond the now of experience is to place our foot in the gunsights of our own criticisms. Or so it seems to me. ..just sayn Pragmatisms purpose as is Philosophy and meditation is to rid ourselfs of our stale dead, confusing concepts that do nothing but impede our criticle thinking skills. If its contradictory or seems contradictory then there is something we are not quite grasping. -Ron . ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: >[DM] >I see patterns as pre existing language and conceptualisation in experience >but not in any SOM terms... > >[Arlo] >And this I think is your problem, you seem to think that changing the 'terms' >is all that is necessary to avoid "SOM". > >After weeks of this all I can conclude is that you think "SOM" simply means >using the words "subjects" and "objects", and that if you simply say >"patterns" or "SQ" instead- without changing any of the underlying >assumptions- then you're out of SOM. > >"SOM" refers to the idea that, prior to experience, there is an independent >subject/pattern/thing and an independent object/pattern/thing, and that >experience is the coming together of the two pre-experiential patterns/things. >This is precisely what you've been articulating, seeming to argue repeatedly >that because you are using the word "patterns" it is "MOQ" and not "SOM". > >"SOM" is "pre-experiential existence", whether you call whatever is >pre-experiential 'objects' or 'patterns' or 'SQ' does not change this. > >Whether you are right or not about the betterness of a metaphysics that grants >pre-experiential existence to one that puts experience as primary, you can >argue as you see fit. But I think until you understand the basic assumptions >of what Pirsig means by both "SOM" and his MOQ, then you're fighting a battle >without understanding the war. > > > >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
