[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
.. but I do know that the forms of intellect Pirsig mentions require 
definition, i.e., a subject ascribing meaning to an objective symbol, 
and thus within SOM.

[Arlo]
And with one fell swoop you demonstrate more profound ignorance than 
I have seen in a days.

I'll repost my remediation, because you most certainly need it.

SOM = a specific metaphysical position that posits that subjects and 
objects are the PRIMARY metaphysical distinction of "reality".

By your definition, since a dog can ascribe meaning to a ringing bell 
it is "witihin SOM" (such horrible rhetoric too).

Language, because it makes use of what we call "subjects" and 
"objects", is not therefore "SOM". Language also makes use of verbs 
of action and temporal markers, and we could just as easily say that 
"definition" is "within ATM" (Active-Temporal Metaphysics).

It is this gross confusion between the conventional terms "subjects" 
and "objects", and the position of positing that "subjects" and 
"objects" are the primary metaphysical distinction of "reality", that 
keeps me wondering exactly how it is that you can be part of a 
philosophy discussion group for so long and yet remain so woefully 
uninformed and ignorant, unless you are making every deliberate 
attempt to remain so.