Struan]
> I'm afraid that I can't even begin to think in those
terms any more. They seem so obscure and
> confused. Just in the first line of your explanation you
wrote, "In SOM, the self is some fixed,
> objective entity." Again. If that is SOM then most
empiricists do not subscribe to it. Take Hume for
> example, 'the self is nothing more than a bundle of
perceptions which change from one instant to the
> next.' It seems to me that every time somebody throws SOM
into the conversation, they do it solely
> to obfuscate precisely who and what they are talking
about. Am I to take it that Hume is not part of
> this SOM conspiracy, or will he be dragged back in for
the next conversation? It is like God.
> Impossible to disprove because it shifts around with
every argument to suit the arguer. Disprove one
> use of the term (as I just have if the main strand of
empiricism is to remain SOM) and remarkably a
> new use will emerge phoenix like from the ashes just in
time to re-establish itself as the 'worthy
> adversary.' Can you blame me for concluding that it
doesn't exist?
>
Struan,
I'm somewhat tired of hearing you harp about how SOM
never existed in the first place and is a myth and cannot
be disproved because every time you attack the notion it
changes so it doesn't exist etc. So I'm going to do a
strange thing (for me, that is), I'm going to agree with
you.
Yes, Pirsig invented SOM. No, there never was even one
philosopher who described it in the way he did. Worse,
there never was one scientist, or even a human, who
believed exactly in what he describes as SOM.
Does that mean that SOM is just a fanciful notion out of
the brains of a ex-maniac ? No.
How do I know ? Because I'm an ex-SOMist.
(As an aside,some people believe I'm still one, but
that's pure slander). ;o)
I never knew much about philosophy, and quite frankly I
find it such a large field of study that I despair of ever
finding the time to read Plato, Aristotle, St Thomas of
Aquinas, Hume, Hegel, Kant, Wittgenstein, Russel or any
other to my full satisfaction. While I'm vaguely aware of
their ideas, I wouldn't be able to describe their theories
to any "expert" and get his approval.
So I'm no expert in philosophy, that's agreed, so how do
I know SOM exists and is very real ?
Because I recognized it when it was described to me.
Just as Pirsig perceived the "green flash" when he was
told about it, just as Einstein was so sure acceleration
and gravity were the same thing he could say "I've would
have felt pity for God if my theory had been wrong", I
recognized a pattern within myself, that "SOM" described so
perfectly it could only be right.
SOM is not taught in any school, per se, but it *is*
taught in every school, family and book I had ever been,
lived or read until ZMM. It is a pattern underlying all
western thought, and while you might be right that it may
not really deserve its M status, it sure deserve all the
scorn Pirsig puts on it.
Of course, SOM is Pirsig's invention ; it had no more
existence before the term was coined than gravity had
before Newton defined it. Or relativity before Einstein.
The core belief of MoQ is that we "create" every IntPoV
that exist, and SOM and MOQ are no exceptions. The term
(and definition of) "SOM" is a model for a intellectual
reality that is far too complex to ever be put into words.
That's the role of intelligence : to find patterns, and to
exclude irrelevent data from our models. If Pirsig had
searched for every sentence from every philosopher to see
if SOM was somewhere in there, there would have been no ZMM
and no Lila. If everyone did this kind of research, no one
would ever write books about anything. To define is to
exclude.
BTW, about the "myth" part : it's all myths. SOM is a
myth, science is a myth, MOQ is a myth, there is no escape
from myth. It's a way of saying : it's just in your mind.
Just a little reminder.
You cannot say that SOM isn't real because, since Pirsig
invented it, it certainly does exist. All you can do (and I
give you that, you do) is criticize its worth, its value,
its Quality as a philosophical concept. So keep up the
critics but forget your "it's a strawman" position, because
that's one you cannot defend. If the concept is useful and
provides a good description of a part of reality that has
value, it *is* real even if no one knew what object,
subject and metaphysics meant. And I don't think you can
argue that it is useless as a description of the
"Death-Force", or the stupid use of science that is
nowadays extended to all our endeavours, no matter the
social or spiritual cost.
I'd like to go on your other critics, but this is long
enough for one post.
See you later
Denis
PS : How could a jazz musician choose X over Quality?
It's soooo square ! :)
______________________________________________________
Boîte aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com
attached mail follows:
[Struan]
> I'm afraid that I can't even begin to think in those
terms any more. They seem so obscure and
> confused. Just in the first line of your explanation you
wrote, "In SOM, the self is some fixed,
> objective entity." Again. If that is SOM then most
empiricists do not subscribe to it. Take Hume for
> example, 'the self is nothing more than a bundle of
perceptions which change from one instant to the
> next.' It seems to me that every time somebody throws SOM
into the conversation, they do it solely
> to obfuscate precisely who and what they are talking
about. Am I to take it that Hume is not part of
> this SOM conspiracy, or will he be dragged back in for
the next conversation? It is like God.
> Impossible to disprove because it shifts around with
every argument to suit the arguer. Disprove one
> use of the term (as I just have if the main strand of
empiricism is to remain SOM) and remarkably a
> new use will emerge phoenix like from the ashes just in
time to re-establish itself as the 'worthy
> adversary.' Can you blame me for concluding that it
doesn't exist?
>
Struan,
I'm somewhat tired of hearing you harp about how SOM
never existed in the first place and is a myth and cannot
be disproved because every time you attack the notion it
changes so it doesn't exist etc. So I'm going to do a
strange thing (for me, that is), I'm going to agree with
you.
Yes, Pirsig invented SOM. No, there never was even one
philosopher who described it in the way he did. Worse,
there never was one scientist, or even a human, who
believed exactly in what he describes as SOM.
Does that mean that SOM is just a fanciful notion out of
the brains of a ex-maniac ? No.
How do I know ? Because I'm an ex-SOMist.
(As an aside,some people believe I'm still one, but
that's pure slander). ;o)
I never knew much about philosophy, and quite frankly I
find it such a large field of study that I despair of ever
finding the time to read Plato, Aristotle, St Thomas of
Aquinas, Hume, Hegel, Kant, Wittgenstein, Russel or any
other to my full satisfaction. While I'm vaguely aware of
their ideas, I wouldn't be able to describe their theories
to any "expert" and get his approval.
So I'm no expert in philosophy, that's agreed, so how do
I know SOM exists and is very real ?
Because I recognized it when it was described to me.
Just as Pirsig perceived the "green flash" when he was
told about it, just as Einstein was so sure acceleration
and gravity were the same thing he could say "I've would
have felt pity for God if my theory had been wrong", I
recognized a pattern within myself, that "SOM" described so
perfectly it could only be right.
SOM is not taught in any school, per se, but it *is*
taught in every school, family and book I had ever been,
lived or read until ZMM. It is a pattern underlying all
western thought, and while you might be right that it may
not really deserve its M status, it sure deserve all the
scorn Pirsig puts on it.
Of course, SOM is Pirsig's invention ; it had no more
existence before the term was coined than gravity had
before Newton defined it. Or relativity before Einstein.
The core belief of MoQ is that we "create" every IntPoV
that exist, and SOM and MOQ are no exceptions. The term
(and definition of) "SOM" is a model for a intellectual
reality that is far too complex to ever be put into words.
That's the role of intelligence : to find patterns, and to
exclude irrelevent data from our models. If Pirsig had
searched for every sentence from every philosopher to see
if SOM was somewhere in there, there would have been no ZMM
and no Lila. If everyone did this kind of research, no one
would ever write books about anything. To define is to
exclude.
BTW, about the "myth" part : it's all myths. SOM is a
myth, science is a myth, MOQ is a myth, there is no escape
from myth. It's a way of saying : it's just in your mind.
Just a little reminder.
You cannot say that SOM isn't real because, since Pirsig
invented it, it certainly does exist. All you can do (and I
give you that, you do) is criticize its worth, its value,
its Quality as a philosophical concept. So keep up the
critics but forget your "it's a strawman" position, because
that's one you cannot defend. If the concept is useful and
provides a good description of a part of reality that has
value, it *is* real even if no one knew what object,
subject and metaphysics meant. And I don't think you can
argue that it is useless as a description of the
"Death-Force", or the stupid use of science that is
nowadays extended to all our endeavours, no matter the
social or spiritual cost.
I'd like to go on your other critics, but this is long
enough for one post.
See you later
Denis
PS : How could a jazz musician choose X over Quality?
It's soooo square ! :)
______________________________________________________
Boîte aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:36 BST