[MD] What is SOM?

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Bo, All

What I'm seeing in the exchange quoted below is a lot of difference  
in view of what SOM is. I've started a new thread here to see what if  
we can clarify.

I think if SOM mostly in terms of subjective/objective knowledge  
distinctions while you see it as symbol/what is symbolized.

Can others provide evidence of what Pirsig means by subject-object  
metaphysics?

Thanks,
Steve

Steve:
>> Solving equations algebraically is also normally considered
>> intellectual activity yet contains no subjects and objects.
>
Bo:
> The symbols are subject(ive) what they symbolize are object(tive)
> - even if abstracts - quantities, functions etc.. The rules of how to
> manipulate these symbols may be more complicated than adding
> or subtracting (I never mastered it) but principally the same as
> moving stones on the ground or "beads" on an abacus,
> something humankind has done for aeons, it just never occurred
> to them that these were "symbols that stood for something else".

>
>> Steve:
>> Quality is reality and the MOQ is a theory. I don't see
>> any fault with saying so.
>
Bo:
> Except that this is SOM under a thin MOQ guise.
>
>> Steve:
>> I don't see a necessity of SOM thinking in distinguishing symbols and
>> what they symbolize.
>
Bo:
> Sure, you can say "no" to anything I say, but something as plainly
> SOM as "symbols/what's symbolized" I can hardly think of.

> Steve:
>> SOM is the western philosophical tradition. It is not all the world's
>> thought. SOM is an issue of making subjective/objective knowledge and
>> appearance/reality distinctions.
>