Struan] > I'm afraid that I can't even begin to think in those terms any more. They seem so obscure and > confused. Just in the first line of your explanation you wrote, "In SOM, the self is some fixed, > objective entity." Again. If that is SOM then most empiricists do not subscribe to it. Take Hume for > example, 'the self is nothing more than a bundle of perceptions which change from one instant to the > next.' It seems to me that every time somebody throws SOM into the conversation, they do it solely > to obfuscate precisely who and what they are talking about. Am I to take it that Hume is not part of > this SOM conspiracy, or will he be dragged back in for the next conversation? It is like God. > Impossible to disprove because it shifts around with every argument to suit the arguer. Disprove one > use of the term (as I just have if the main strand of empiricism is to remain SOM) and remarkably a > new use will emerge phoenix like from the ashes just in time to re-establish itself as the 'worthy > adversary.' Can you blame me for concluding that it doesn't exist? > Struan, I'm somewhat tired of hearing you harp about how SOM never existed in the first place and is a myth and cannot be disproved because every time you attack the notion it changes so it doesn't exist etc. So I'm going to do a strange thing (for me, that is), I'm going to agree with you. Yes, Pirsig invented SOM. No, there never was even one philosopher who described it in the way he did. Worse, there never was one scientist, or even a human, who believed exactly in what he describes as SOM. Does that mean that SOM is just a fanciful notion out of the brains of a ex-maniac ? No. How do I know ? Because I'm an ex-SOMist. (As an aside,some people believe I'm still one, but that's pure slander). ;o) I never knew much about philosophy, and quite frankly I find it such a large field of study that I despair of ever finding the time to read Plato, Aristotle, St Thomas of Aquinas, Hume, Hegel, Kant, Wittgenstein, Russel or any other to my full satisfaction. While I'm vaguely aware of their ideas, I wouldn't be able to describe their theories to any "expert" and get his approval. So I'm no expert in philosophy, that's agreed, so how do I know SOM exists and is very real ? Because I recognized it when it was described to me. Just as Pirsig perceived the "green flash" when he was told about it, just as Einstein was so sure acceleration and gravity were the same thing he could say "I've would have felt pity for God if my theory had been wrong", I recognized a pattern within myself, that "SOM" described so perfectly it could only be right. SOM is not taught in any school, per se, but it *is* taught in every school, family and book I had ever been, lived or read until ZMM. It is a pattern underlying all western thought, and while you might be right that it may not really deserve its M status, it sure deserve all the scorn Pirsig puts on it. Of course, SOM is Pirsig's invention ; it had no more existence before the term was coined than gravity had before Newton defined it. Or relativity before Einstein. The core belief of MoQ is that we "create" every IntPoV that exist, and SOM and MOQ are no exceptions. The term (and definition of) "SOM" is a model for a intellectual reality that is far too complex to ever be put into words. That's the role of intelligence : to find patterns, and to exclude irrelevent data from our models. If Pirsig had searched for every sentence from every philosopher to see if SOM was somewhere in there, there would have been no ZMM and no Lila. If everyone did this kind of research, no one would ever write books about anything. To define is to exclude. BTW, about the "myth" part : it's all myths. SOM is a myth, science is a myth, MOQ is a myth, there is no escape from myth. It's a way of saying : it's just in your mind. Just a little reminder. You cannot say that SOM isn't real because, since Pirsig invented it, it certainly does exist. All you can do (and I give you that, you do) is criticize its worth, its value, its Quality as a philosophical concept. So keep up the critics but forget your "it's a strawman" position, because that's one you cannot defend. If the concept is useful and provides a good description of a part of reality that has value, it *is* real even if no one knew what object, subject and metaphysics meant. And I don't think you can argue that it is useless as a description of the "Death-Force", or the stupid use of science that is nowadays extended to all our endeavours, no matter the social or spiritual cost. I'd like to go on your other critics, but this is long enough for one post. See you later Denis PS : How could a jazz musician choose X over Quality? It's soooo square ! :) ______________________________________________________ Bo�te aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com
[Struan] > I'm afraid that I can't even begin to think in those terms any more. They seem so obscure and > confused. Just in the first line of your explanation you wrote, "In SOM, the self is some fixed, > objective entity." Again. If that is SOM then most empiricists do not subscribe to it. Take Hume for > example, 'the self is nothing more than a bundle of perceptions which change from one instant to the > next.' It seems to me that every time somebody throws SOM into the conversation, they do it solely > to obfuscate precisely who and what they are talking about. Am I to take it that Hume is not part of > this SOM conspiracy, or will he be dragged back in for the next conversation? It is like God. > Impossible to disprove because it shifts around with every argument to suit the arguer. Disprove one > use of the term (as I just have if the main strand of empiricism is to remain SOM) and remarkably a > new use will emerge phoenix like from the ashes just in time to re-establish itself as the 'worthy > adversary.' Can you blame me for concluding that it doesn't exist? > Struan, I'm somewhat tired of hearing you harp about how SOM never existed in the first place and is a myth and cannot be disproved because every time you attack the notion it changes so it doesn't exist etc. So I'm going to do a strange thing (for me, that is), I'm going to agree with you. Yes, Pirsig invented SOM. No, there never was even one philosopher who described it in the way he did. Worse, there never was one scientist, or even a human, who believed exactly in what he describes as SOM. Does that mean that SOM is just a fanciful notion out of the brains of a ex-maniac ? No. How do I know ? Because I'm an ex-SOMist. (As an aside,some people believe I'm still one, but that's pure slander). ;o) I never knew much about philosophy, and quite frankly I find it such a large field of study that I despair of ever finding the time to read Plato, Aristotle, St Thomas of Aquinas, Hume, Hegel, Kant, Wittgenstein, Russel or any other to my full satisfaction. While I'm vaguely aware of their ideas, I wouldn't be able to describe their theories to any "expert" and get his approval. So I'm no expert in philosophy, that's agreed, so how do I know SOM exists and is very real ? Because I recognized it when it was described to me. Just as Pirsig perceived the "green flash" when he was told about it, just as Einstein was so sure acceleration and gravity were the same thing he could say "I've would have felt pity for God if my theory had been wrong", I recognized a pattern within myself, that "SOM" described so perfectly it could only be right. SOM is not taught in any school, per se, but it *is* taught in every school, family and book I had ever been, lived or read until ZMM. It is a pattern underlying all western thought, and while you might be right that it may not really deserve its M status, it sure deserve all the scorn Pirsig puts on it. Of course, SOM is Pirsig's invention ; it had no more existence before the term was coined than gravity had before Newton defined it. Or relativity before Einstein. The core belief of MoQ is that we "create" every IntPoV that exist, and SOM and MOQ are no exceptions. The term (and definition of) "SOM" is a model for a intellectual reality that is far too complex to ever be put into words. That's the role of intelligence : to find patterns, and to exclude irrelevent data from our models. If Pirsig had searched for every sentence from every philosopher to see if SOM was somewhere in there, there would have been no ZMM and no Lila. If everyone did this kind of research, no one would ever write books about anything. To define is to exclude. BTW, about the "myth" part : it's all myths. SOM is a myth, science is a myth, MOQ is a myth, there is no escape from myth. It's a way of saying : it's just in your mind. Just a little reminder. You cannot say that SOM isn't real because, since Pirsig invented it, it certainly does exist. All you can do (and I give you that, you do) is criticize its worth, its value, its Quality as a philosophical concept. So keep up the critics but forget your "it's a strawman" position, because that's one you cannot defend. If the concept is useful and provides a good description of a part of reality that has value, it *is* real even if no one knew what object, subject and metaphysics meant. And I don't think you can argue that it is useless as a description of the "Death-Force", or the stupid use of science that is nowadays extended to all our endeavours, no matter the social or spiritual cost. I'd like to go on your other critics, but this is long enough for one post. See you later Denis PS : How could a jazz musician choose X over Quality? It's soooo square ! :) ______________________________________________________ Bo�te aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com
