[MD] What is SOM?

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Joe --


> I want to apply a metaphysics of undefined, defined
> to your statement:
>
> I am my conscious awareness, the subjective Knower (undefined)
> of my reality (defined). Take away all intellectual, conceptual, and
> relational elements (defined) from my consciousness, (undefined)
> and I remain that which "knows" (undefined). This is so simple,
> basic, and self-evident (undefined) with the single exception of
> those weird Pirsigians who insist (defined) that subjectivity
> (undefined) is a myth (defined).

And what do we gain by this defined/undefined rationale?  Perhaps it 
demonstrates that the components of awareness reduce to a duality (SOM).

Under what you cite as 'undefined' are the Knower (a subject by definition), 
Consciousness, Knowing, and Subjectivity (selfness).  These are of course 
the non-existent "mental" elements or processes, as opposed to Reality which 
is defined by objective experience.  I'm not so sure Insistence and Myth 
fall into the 'defined' category, however.  The former is an expression of 
intent or will on the part of a subject, while Myth is defined only in the 
sense that it identifies the subject's invalidated belief system.

A comment of yours to Marsha on 8/6 may shed some light on on your motive 
here:

[Joe]:
> Your emphasis on the term "emptiness" echoes how I view
> the undefined consciousness/self-awareness of the Social level.
> In a seven level template for evolution "emptiness of emptiness"
> also echoes the evolution of Subject only, the 6th higher
> emotional level.

In a previous post you also said:
> The relationship between what is undefined S and what is
> defined O becomes intellectual, SOL.

I can't make any sense of the levels inferences, but you do refer to "the 
undefined consciousness/self-awareness of the Social level".  I don't know 
that it's possible to define self-awareness as a Social phenomenon, but 
would argue that it most certainly defines the individual.  What you seem to 
be saying is that since the subjective self can be defined only in terms of 
its "relational elements" (patterns?), conscious awareness is a non-entity 
(unless the intellect can define it).  In other words, there IS NO SUBJECT, 
as Pirsig maintains.

Joe, I hope I have this wrong, and that you are not echoing the nihilistic 
position that what is objectively indefinable (i.e., Self, Value, Essence, 
etc.) cannot be.  Please tell me you had some other purpose or strategy in 
mind.

Thanks, Joseph.

--Ham