Hi Scott, John B., Gary, Bo, Wim, Dan, All:
In responding to Gary's questions I used the old map/territory metaphor.
But as I did so I felt a vague sense of discomfort, fearing that I had
inadvertently fallen into the SOM trap. Then, in reviewing some previous
posts I noticed Scott said that map/territory "is ultimately as a bogus as
the distinction between subject and object" and John B. agreed. I
believe Bo has expressed similar reservations about the map/territory
metaphor though I can't find a specific notation.
However, Pirsig seems to be comfortable with the metaphor. In Chapter
8 he compares the MOQ to a North Pole map as opposed to the
standard Mercator map. Also, in note 42 in Dan Glover's "Lila's Child"
Pirsig says, ". . . the intellect is the manipulation of language-derived
symbols for experience . . ." This sounds like map-making to me.
Perhaps the answer lies in the observation Bo made recently that to
explain something we have to use SOM (giving me the idea that the
Intellectual Level might well be called the "Explanation Level.") So in
trying to explain the MOQ, we fall into SOM assumptions out of
necessity. Scott seemed to agree when he wrote, "all we can know are
maps."
If any of you would care to show me how to extricate myself for this
quandary, I'd appreciate it.
Platt
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST