[MD] Decision

[John Carl]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Andy Skelton <skeltoac at gmail.com> wrote:

> John to Andy:
>


> Your concept of manipulating symbols is fine and well placed. I agree
> that static intellectual patterns require subjects and objects. But it
> is not what creates subjects and objects. By their creation a being
> evolves from 2 to 3. That is the boundary between [12] and [34].
>
>
Umm... I thought that's what I said.  The creation of S/O is social, the
manipulation of the symbols realized is intellectual.  Isn't that the exact
same thing you're saying?


> Review this diagram: http://moq.org/forum/Pirsig/emm.html#page13



Ummm... no.  Diagrams confuse me.  As does the conflation of word and
image.  I'm fairly Kierkegaardian in that one.  Ya know, the "reptition of
error" based on Plato's mistake of the domain of the word (truth) with the
domain of the real (sight) and reiterated through generation after
generation of philosophers "building castles in the air and living beside
them in a hut."



>
>
> Static intellectual patterns, the ones we think with, are one thing.
> DQ is a whole other thing. You can't write a single word about it, nor
> even think a thought about it, and be correct.
>
>

Ohhhh....kay.

A couple things:  first, we don't only think with static intellectual
patterns, we think IN them.  "We" is part of the whole problem in S/O
metatphysics in the first place.  But that's a discredited way of thinking.
That's SOM in MoQese, Realism in Roycean, and just plain goin' nowhere on
John's roller coaster metaphysics.

As to DQ...  I thought you pretty much completely forgot Lila.  ZAMM doen't
mention it much and for another thing, DAMN you sure are well-informed for a
newbie!!

But hey, don't change a thing, you male programmer from Austin, you.  I'm
really enjoying this one.

Don't change a thing, 'andy skelton.



John