[MD] Putting SOM back into the MOQ by excluding SQ, let's not do that say some of us

[X]

Arlo,
Great point, and one that deserves further inquirey.
One may argue that due to its practical success
SOM has value in this regard it posesses a betterness
than an all out rejection and I think that is why Pirsig
uses it POST-experientialy.

-Ron

..

ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

>[Ron]
>Eh, what about the four levels explanation. THAT certainly addresses preconceptual patterns of value.
>
>[Arlo]
>The four levels of Pirsig's MOQ are POST-experiential.
>
>[Ron]
>Now to say we sink back to SOM when we begin to theorize beyond the now of experience...
>
>[Arlo]
>I'm beginning to think that until people can show they understand the term "SOM", posts where they use this term should be flagged. 
>
>"SOM" refers to pre-experiential existence; whether you call that which precedes experience 'objects' or 'patterns' does not matter, it is the PRE-EXPERIENTIAL assumption that defines SOM, not the use of the word 'object'. 
>
>We "sink back to SOM" when we talk about pre-experiential existence. THAT is SOM. THAT is why the MOQ is different, radically different, when it proposes that ALL static quality ("patterns") are POST-experiential. 
>
>In "SOM", 'we' experience 'static quality'. In the MOQ, 'static quality' emerges FROM experience. These are two radically different views, and THIS is where the "Copernican" revolution of the MOQ is found. 
>
>You can argue that a better metaphysics must include pre-experiential 'things/patterns/objects/existence', but we really need to be clear that this IS "SOM", and that simply not using 'subjects' and 'objects' doesn't change that.
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org/md/archives.html