Hello 3WD,
In a message dated 6/25/02 11:08:19 PM GMT Daylight Time, dlt44@ipa.net
writes:
> Patrick, all,
>
> What is SOM, (Subject/ Object metaphysics)?
>
> SOM is a term (created by Pirsig) to describe a school of philosophic
> thought which can be traced to early Greek times which subscribes to the
> notion that "the truth" is superior to "the good".
I feel you are confusing matters here?
Pirsig suggests that Plato regarded truth as eternal, static Parmenedian
principle, but this does not make it superior to the Good.
Pirsig goes on to suggest that Plato made the Good an object of thought, an
idea, even though Plato says clearly that the Form of the Good is beyond
being.
Pheadrus, in ZMM, continually questions the value of rhetoric rather as Plato
did.
Rhetoric may have more value with regard to Quality than dialectic, but
language of any kind is limiting.
The question of subjects and objects is one of culture.
This duality is learned through exposure to our culture and tracing back the
development of our cultural heritage goes way back beyond early Greek
culture.
And that this theory
>
> was and is dominant in all Western cultures. Furthermore, this theory
> was and is, appropriately applied, a necessary and "good" theory.
> However it's "good" is LIMITED, and the failure of Western civilization
> to understand this has, and may continue to lead to ongoing and systemic
> problems in the development of a "GOOD", long term, substainable human
> culture.
>
> 3WD
>
If Pirsig created the term SOM, then it cannot have been evaluated by any
culture before ours?
We, at our privileged vantage point, may wish to gaze down through the
centuries and evaluate the influence of SOM, but it most certainly had not
been intentionally 'applied' as you put it?
So, if SOM had been neccessary and good unintentionaly, you appear to be
telling us that it has been pragmatic?
If this is the case, why challenge it?
It may well be that it should be challenged from a Human centred perspective,
but...
If the MOQ is Human centred then i should agree.
If however, as i suspect, the MOQ is Cosmic centred, then human values are
not the be - all - and - end - all of the cosmos are they?
For all we should like to think, SOM may lead to a new dynamic pattern of
life which makes Humans a little redundant?
This is a duality which may exist within this discussion group, and there is
a third membership that is not here for very long before it leaves because of
this duality:
1. The first group feels the MOQ deals with humans.
Fair enough.
What other vantage point is there? They ask reintroducing SOM!
These people tend to think in epistemological terms i feel (just like the
University staff in ZMM who wished to KNOW what quality is).
2. The second group feels the MOQ deals with more than Humans.
This puts them rather at odds with the first group because speculation goes
beyond the known. Quality is for them! (Rather like Pheadrus in ZMM who felt
he had a metaphysical response to the epistemological question put by the
staff.)
This group tends to think in metaphysical terms?
3. The third group says little and does not engage in the group too much if
at all and so are ignored by the rest. These people REALLY get onto quality
and know it does not require chat.
What is SOM?
Mu.
You have to expand your categories before you can define that which is
smaller.
All the best,
Squonk.
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 - 16:02:20 BST