Greetings,
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. This recognition is not unique to
Pirsig as, for instance, the Cambridge
Hi DMB,
Ian [had] replied:
Agreed. Precisely ...
dmb says:
Dude, you've announced your agreement with one bland statement and totally
ignored the rest. Why ask the question if you're just going to ignore the
answer.
Not ignoring, just proceeding carefully, progressively.
You say
Hi MarshaV and All,
Do levels in existence describe reality DQ/SQ?
The basis for reality in such an assumption would entail
indefinable/definable reality in existence. Does that describe DQ/SQ?
Is evolution nothing more than rhetoric?
MOQ DQ/SQ proposes indefinable reality. How can I
Marsha said:
Cannot help but wonder about the knower and the known, or the observer and the
observed? Has this dualist perspective vanished into a cloud of pretty
rhetorical terms such as elegance, consistency and coherence, and what of
phrases like DQ chooses and SOM thinks? Very pretty
Ian had said:
To avoid the (unnecessary) mixing up, to avoid (unnecessarily) working
the SOMism to death, let's disentangle any (low quality) narrow,
GOF-SOMist-intellectual discourse from a wider (high quality,
enlightened, extended) MoQ-ish-intellectual discourse - by expressing
what more
Ian:
without any visible agreements, actual positions get
ignored, perceived positions get misquoted (as straw men) and thrown
back as misleading positions in ad-hominem arguments. (Half a dozen
examples in this thread alone.)
[Ron points out]
Notice Ian, how you are making an appeal to
Dmb,
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. This recognition is not unique to
Pirsig as, for instance, the Cambridge Dictionary of
