>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>Hello Rick,
BO
Explain the S of SOM in terms of the O! Exactly! (and the O in terms of the
S for the idealist camp I would add) is the self-
defeating task that the SOMites never seem to tire of, and regrettably a
trap
that so many would-be MOQites also fall for. See the "Seeing the Light"
thread.
ERIN (Rick's interpretation of my interpretation of Bo)
Hear, hear!
ERIN:
My email was far from "hear, hear". It was defending reasoning about
dharmakaya light.
>ERIN
Rick they do see the difference. They don't distinguish the difference.
>RICK
>Erin how do you know?
ERIN
>From the studies that went after the Whorfian idea. The cultures didn't seem
to distinguish colors but when pushed by selecting from color chips they
showed they could perceptually see the difference. They went from cultures
that had only two color words all the way to English. Every culture was able
to distinguish the color chips even if they only had two names for the set of
chips.
>RICK
>This is a conclusion, not an argument... and it begs the question. We're
>trying to decide whether Pirsig means 'see' or 'distinguish'.
ERIN: If it's color I say distinguish, if it's dharmakaya light I am not sure
that was this thread was trying to figure out. I say distinguish with color
because he uses color example in the same example of a psychologist
distinguishing a psychotic and a mystic. This is clearly a cognitive
difference to me not perceptual. Again with the dharmakaya I don't know if it
is cognitive or perceptual I don't think it has been cleared up yet.
Example: Let's say one culture has only two color words. Every color was
either black or white. If you asked a person from this culture whether they
could see a color difference of a blue crayon and a black crayon and they
would say no. To them they are both "black". But when given a bunch of crayons
and forced to divy them up to a certain number of groups you see they do
perceptually see the difference by how they group them.
>
>ERIN
> Is that peyote affecting your short-term memory-remember all the Whorfian
>talk?
>
>RICK
>What peyote?
ERIN: I'm just joking with you.
>RICK: Either way, Whorf was about LANGUAGE, which is but one single kind of
social pattern. We talking here of the effect of an entire mythos.
ERIN: I'm not sure what you mean here.
>ERIN
>So then difference between subjective and objective would be majority vote.
>
>RICK
>According to Pirsig, what is subject and objective depends on CULTURAL
>definitions of what is real and unreal. This is not say 'majority vote'
>determines what is subjective and objective. Rather, 'majority vote'
>determines what the culture defines as real and unreal.
ERIN: The reason I said this was in defense of Pirsig, or of anyone who claims
to see a difference when the majority doesn't.
I am saying that seeing subtle differences that the rest of the population
doesn't see is called subjective sometimes. But I still don't know if the
subtle difference Pirsig sees in dharmakaya light is cognitive or perceptive.
That was what this thread was trying to figure out. If it sounded like I was
not interested in this thread I am sorry I gave that impression-- I thought I
was defending it.
Moral of the post---If somebody says they don't see a difference you need to
figure out whether they mean "see" or "understand". Pirsig talks about the
artificial light bulb immediately recognized. My guess is that Pirsig is
saying that distinguishing dharmakaya light is "understand" not a "see". But
it is only my guess, i think it is very worthwhile if you want to pursue the
"see" with Glenn. I am an no way tied to the difference being cognitive.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:56 BST