[MD] What is SOM?

[Steve Peterson]

> Hi Bo,


>> 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.
>
> I wonder why you regard "symbol/what's symbolized" as special,
> but for now.
>

I think I agree that intellect requires a symbol/what's symbolized  
distinction but disagree that  this distinction is equivalent to S/O.



>> 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.”
>
> "Objects" in the "substance" sense isn't all of SOM, the adjective
> form is part of it, and in the most subtle ways, as in  "an objective
> fact" where the fact may be an abstract. The below is from LILA.
> page 45 (digital)

I agree that subjective/objective knowledge distinctions are a direct  
product of thinking of the universe as composed of only subjects and  
objects.



>
> (Steve)
>> “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)
> This (involuntarily) demonstrates that the opening move of
> Reality=Quality that can be split in arbitrary ways - the MOQ just
> one possibility - is invalid. Quality split the S/O way is just as
> "bad" as ordinary SOM. In other words, the opening move is
> Reality=DQ/SQ! (inside the MOQ intellect splits Quality the S/O
> way, but that's a static value)

Pirsig demonstrates that dq/sq works better as a first cut than s/o,  
but doesn't suppose that this is the one true way of doing it and  
nothing better will ever come along.
>
>> 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."
>
>> 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"?
>
> The SOM has much subtler S/O pairs. In ZAMM the development
> of SOM is seen from Socrates' Opinion/Truth to Plato's
> Appearance/Ideas and Aristotle's Form/Substance, but Pirsig
> spotted the SOM under all these phases. So I see no objection to
> the symbol/what's symbolized as an advanced S/O ...that has
> created its own platypus, namely the language/reality one.
>

Can you explain how "symbol/what's symbolized" is a result of seeing  
the world as composed only of subjects and objects or of making  
subjective/objective knowledge distinctions? If you want to put them  
in S/O terms, the symbol and what's symbolized sound like objects to me.

Thanks,
Steve