[MD] What is SOM?

[Platt Holden]

Hi All, 

Seems like dmb can't get out of the definitions and divisions of the 
intellectual level. In other words, he is firmly stuck in SOM Flatland. So 
he can't understand that the MOQ perspective comes from a higher dimension 
than the SOM intellectual level. Nor does he understand that the MOQ must 
use SOM language to convince SOM Flatlanders that the MOQ perspective 
affords a better view of reality than SOM. 

Oh well, someday the sun may shine. To borrow a cliche from Two-Timing 
Edwards, Slick Willie, B.O., et al., one can always hope.  
Platt   

> dmb says:
> The Ker Ching moment came in seeing what essentialism means and how SOM
> relates to essentialism, as described above. I don't agree with the
> assertion that Ian and Platt agree upon here. They seem to equate SOM with
> intellect just like Bo, if not for the same reasons that Bo does. I
> suspect it is a distorted version of a pretty good idea, a paralyzing
> interpretation of some decent anti-essentialists notions. In order to
> conclude that we're "hidebound" otherwise doomed to think in terms of SOM,
> one would have to also conclude that Pirsig's deconstruction of SOM is
> "hidebound" by SOMist heritage. Not to mention James and Dewey and the
> tetra lemma. The fact that this assertion continues to be made in the face
> of such obvious and relevant counter-examples is extremely frustrating.
> Pirsig's non-SOM thinking and this thinking is supposedly familiar to us
> all. In this context, frankly, the assertion is pure nonsense. Asserting
> it is not only obviously wrong, its destructive. If SOM i
>  s the problem and SOM is equal to intellect, then intellect is the
> problem. Yikes! That's the paralysis I speak of and it has done as much
> damage as anything else in terms of preventing a fruitful discussion. I
> suspect this is the basis for Ian's general disrespect for definitions and
> the basis of Platt's anti-intellectualism. Even if there were no other
> reasons to deny that intellect and SOM were identical, no obvious counter
> examples, these consequences would be enough reason to reject it.