[MD] What is SOM?

[Krimel]

Krimel said:
Even Ham knows that experience is a personal thing. On this particular point
the MoQ is entirely in the realm of subjective. When each of us has an
experience that experience is primary and we as individuals infer subjects
and objects from it.

dmb says:
Um, I think what DM is trying to say (below) is that you've undercut the
whole point even as you make it. Pirsig says that subjects and objects are
derived from experience and you say, yea, the subjects are derived from the
experience OF THE SUBJECT. That doesn't just undercut the point. You've
reserved it so that it becomes an endorsement of SOM rather than a rejection
of it and an alternative to it. And many, many misconceptions would
naturally follow from this crucial mistake.

I'm beginning to think that you don't really know what you're talking about
here, Krimel.
  
[Krimel]
To the extent that we can discuss subjects and objects as non-metaphysically
significant critters, then yes the MoQ is entirely an account of
phenomenological experience. Derivation does not happen in a vacuum. Once
distinctions are made they do not reside in the ether. We, that is, regular
folks are neither subjects nor objects. We are sometimes one, sometimes the
other and sometimes both. As I have said many times now and as Arlo has
mentioned it is the ability to adopt multiple perspectives that sets our
species apart.

I think this also would be helpful with regards to your confusion about
pluralism and essentialism. The pluralism that I would support and I think
is consistent with the MoQ and with James is that there are many ways to
understand the world around us. This is epistemological pluralism. 

You have turned this into a metaphysical pluralism that I think has been
rejected by nearly everyone who has seriously addressed the issue from Lao
Tsu, Buddha and Jesus to Einstein, Darwin and James.