[MD] What is SOM?

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Bo, all,

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

Bo:
> I repeat that "symbol/what's symbolized" is just one of SOM'
> many facets.

I don't see why this distinction is an SOM product that we'd like to  
dissolve. I don't think it is JUST one of SOM's many facets for you.  
It seems to be the basis of equating intellect with SOM.

Here are a couple quotes concerning what Pirsig means by SOM:

In the SOM conception “…the universe is composed of subjects and  
objects and anything that can't be classified as a subject or an  
object isn't real.”

“A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the  
first division of Quality-the first slice of undivided experience-is  
into subjects and objects. Once you have made that slice, all of  
human experience is supposed to fit into one of these two boxes.  The  
trouble is, it doesn't.”




Bo:
> We all hopefully agree that ZAMM's "Greek section" describes
> the emergence, development and coming of age of SOM.
> (my caps)
>
>     Anaxagoras and Parmenides had a listener named
>     Socrates who carried their ideas into full fruition. What is
>     essential to understand at this point is that until now there
>     was no such thing as MIND and MATTER, SUBJECT and
>     OBJECT, FORM and SUBSTANCE. Those divisions are
>     just dialectical inventions that came later.
>

Steve:
I see mind/matter, subject/object, form/substance as equivalent  
philosophical distinction. Here Pirsig seems to be talking about the  
birth of Western philosophy which I don't equate with the birth of  
the intellectual level. Do you have evidence that Pirsig means for  
his intellectual level to have the same birthday as Western philosphy?

Bo:
> There are surely more S/O derivatives, Mind/body, mental/
> corporeal, abstract/concrete and the said symbol/what's
> symbolized are obvious. One more subtle is nurture/nature but as
> we know, these two never agrees on who determines mankind, so
> it's typical S/O.

Steve:
These derivatives seem to refer to the problems of western philosophy  
that Pirsig called Platypi:

“In a subject-object classification of the world, Quality is in the  
same situation as that platypus.  Because they can't classify it the  
experts have claimed there is something wrong with it.  And Quality  
isn't the only such platypus.  Subject-object metaphysics is  
characterized by herds of huge, dominating, monster platypi.  The  
problems of free will versus determinism, of the relation of mind to  
matter, of the discontinuity of matter at the sub-atomic level, of  
the apparent purposelessness of the universe and the life within it  
are all monster platypi created by the subject-object metaphysics.   
Where it is centered around the subject-object metaphysics, Western  
philosophy can almost be defined as "platypus anatomy."  These  
creatures that seem like such a permanent part of the philosophical  
landscape magically disappear when a good Metaphysics of Quality is  
applied.”

I agree that nature/nurture is this sort of philosophical problem  
resulting from the SOM assumption that the universe consists only of  
subjects and objects.

I disagree that "symbol/symbolized" is this sort of philosophical  
platypus. This seems to be an important point that you'd like to make  
in order to equate the intellectual level with SOM. What is the  
problem with distinguishing symbols and their referrants that the MOQ  
solves? In what way is symbol/symbolized inherently based on an  
assumption that "the universe is composed of subjects and objects and  
anything that can't be classified as a subject or an object isn't real"?

Regards,
Steve