[MD] What is SOM?

[Krimel]

[Bo]
Of course, from SOM's premises the "all is subjective" (not just 
knowledge) sounds watertight and shockproof. 

[Krimel]
I would that it were not so but I await a path out...

[Bo]
On the other hand 
whether the "material world" REALLY is mind makes no 
difference, the two are bound to each other. 

[Krimel]
Whether or not the 'material world' exists at all or how we should describe
it are matters that we must negotiate together, intersubjectively. Kant said
we could not really do this. Pirsig says as much and bolsters his view by
adopting Taoism. It is a chicken and egg issue really with matter evolving
into mind which perceives (that is: processes sensation into meaning) matter
and its own reflections.

[Bo]
This goes for the 
other pole, the  "mind just a fall-out of matter". Mind may just be 
mind, but never the less where everything is realized. The S/O 
screw has turned for 3 thousand years and churned out ever 
more complicated somish patterns. Its being a linguistic 
convenience is a most sophisticated one. 

[Krimel]
Humans like other primates have an extraordinarily complex system of
emotional communication that is universal not just with our own species but
across a great many species. When we speak the "language" of emotion: fear,
joy, hate, love we are understood. When we extend this capacity to include
abstract symbols and to cover common shared experiences that are less
biological in nature, that is when language appears. The very process of
speaking is perhaps first cleavage of subject and object.

[Bo]
Here objectivity=reality: "What guarantees the reality of the world 
... etc." which shows that Phaedrus of ZAMM started from SOM. 
But if we from the MOQ cast our view back to the pre-SOM (IMO 
pre-intellect age, people hardly had any problems if the world was 
objective and not a creation of their minds, this was not invented 
yet. Existence included a host of forces - gods, goddesses, half- 
and semi-half immortals - but even if invisible they were not 
subjective in a SOM sense. OK, no, further comments, the above 
is certainly SOM      

[Krimel]
The 'world' is not so much object as 'other'. The terms we use to
communicate shared understanding of this other in whatever form they have
taken, convey the S/O split. Whatever terms are used; god and goddess or
quarks and leptons are metaphors. History is the recorded search for more
precise metaphors but the S/O split itself is lost in time.