[MD] Which came first? Subjects and objects or SOM?

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Bo,

Steve:
>> Which came first? Subjects and objects or SOM?
>
>> Bo proposes that intellect originates with a distinction between
>> symbol and what is symbolized. I agree that such a distinction is
>> important and is presupposed in most intellectual patterns, but is
>> this all we mean by SOM?
>> SOM is a metaphysics that says that subjects and objects is all that
>> reality really is....
>

Bo:
> SOM isn't just the platitudinous "subjects and objects", but the
> countless varieties of subjectivity in contrast to objectivity.

Steve:
I agree that subjectivity in contrast to objectivity and considering 
values as less than objective is what SOM is about.

Steve:
> ... Thinking in terms of subjects and objects must naturally precede
>> such philosophizing about the nature of reality.
>

Bo:
> Thinking as different from what thinking is about a is part of
> SOM.

Steve:
Here is where we part company. I don't think that Pirsig is railing 
against SOM because of it's distinction between symbol and what is 
symbolized. I don't think he wants to get rid of this distinction at 
all.

Steve:
>> In other words, S/O thinking is not the same as S/O metaphysics (SOM).
>
Bo:
> This is the intelligence=intellect fallacy.

Steve:
I don't think there is a fallacy in saying that people can make 
distinctions between subjects and objects and intellectual patterns and 
inorganic patterns without committing to SO Metaphysics. We can even 
talk about subjectivity and objectivity as Pirsig does in SODV without 
making the distinction fundamental to reality thanks to the MOQ context 
of value pattern levels.


Bo:
... Intellect did the same trick as all
> static levels, namely regard everything as own value and now the
> said "manipulation of experience" became THINKING different
> from the objects (of thinking) and the honorable Steve Peterson
> is now absolutely sure that .....S/O thinking is not the same as
> S/O metaphysics (SOM) ... and it isn't at the SOM, but the MOQ
> isn't SOM, nor is it an intellectual pattern. INTELLECT IS A MOQ
> PATTERN!

Steve:
In the MOQ intellect is a type of pattern of value and the MOQ itself 
is an intellectual pattern. There is no such thing as an MOQ pattern. 
In other words, I don't know what you are getting at.

Regards,
Steve