[MD] Bo vs. Bob

[John Carl]

Hey Matt, nice catch.

Sloppy formulation on my part.

I should have said SOM = intellectual"ism".




>
> You seem to be saying that you wish the levels had been
> named Inorganic/Biological/Social/Consciousness, with
> the top level broken into, roughly, Classic and Romantic,
> as Pirsig had it in ZMM.  Right?



Well I'm not too happy with the "consciousness" label either.  It's a tricky
thing, coming up with the right names.  Reality is nothing without
marketing.



> If that is so, then--moving
> to Pirsig interpretation--you'd need to defend the notion
> that in ZMM (or, in some other complicated inferential
> pattern based on what he's said), Pirsig defined "classic"
> as "SOM."  That doesn't strike me as true, but I haven't
> read ZMM in a long while (and have no complex
> interpretational pattern on hand).  The interpretation of
> "the S/O distinction as classic" strikes me as decent, but
> I'd need to know more about what you mean by
> "metaphysics,"



Fair enough.  Let's take the revised formulation, SOM = Intellectualism.
Taking the classic/romantic split, and conferring all authority and primacy
to the classic side, would be Objectivism or SOM.  The classic intellectual
makes his highest value, this Objectivity.

So I guess what I mean by "metaphysics", is that which you make your highest
value.

 I'm hoping to dive into a deeper understanding of the dialectic, as I've
recently encountered it in a series of lectures by Royce in his "Concept of
the Absolute".

Thanks for the thoughts, Matt.

John