[MD] What is SOM?

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Bo,

Bo said:
>Steve you are an "oldie" around this place and must remember 
>my countless references to the "Oxford Advanced" (Eighteenth 
>impression 1985) ISBN 0 194311066 6) that says:
>
>    "Power of the mind to reason, contrasted with feeling and 
>    instinct."

Steve:
This is the sort of definition that I kept coming across that I couldn't see as suggesting subjective/objective knowledge distinctions.


Bo:
>"Power of the mind" we may disregard for what is not power of 
>mind? 

Steve:
I would say organic, biological, and social patterns as well as DQ are not power of mind.


Bo:
(I'll rather say power of intelligence)  REASON is the arch-
>objective feature and FEELING the arch-subjective ditto. So the 
>power/ability to distinguish between the two looks very much how 
>the said dictionary defines "intellect". 
>
>I know that other dictionaries defines "intellect" less SOL-like and 
>more SOM-like; the ability to think, as MIND for short.  

Steve:
Okay, now I see why you view that definition as support for the SOL.

I just don't agree with your premise that reason implies objectivity and feeling and instinct imply subjectivity.



>> Bo:
>> > ..most people at this discussion are
>> > somists in spite of using MOQ terminology
> 
>> Steve:
>> What do you mean by somists? Am I one?

Bo:
>Well, like I say, they talk a lot about Quality, mostly the dynamic 
>kind - which sounds like a state of being. They also present the 
>(static) intellectual level as dynamic, as some empty vessel that 
>was filled by a bad pattern called SOM and under its yoke for 
>millenniums, but - now - may be have the MOQ as its top 
>content, ignoring the fact that this violates the MOQ. There are 
>no "bad" patterns inside any level, it's from the higher level the 
>good/bad comes in. 

Steve:
I don't think that's true. The hot stove example demonstrates "bad" within the biological level without a social or intellectual judgment.


Bo:
>Treating the MOQ as an intellectual pattern 
>that remains comfortably within intellect makes for a somist. 

Then I guess I am an SOMist in your book, but then so is Pirsig.

Personally I wouldn't call anyone an SOMist who is interested in seeing where Pirsig's Experience=Quality postulate takes us.

Regards,
Steve