hello everyone
Lithien wrote:
isn't our discussion on what DQ is, all about semantics then? a question of
language rather than a quantifying answer? isn't language all we have which
leads us in the direction of SOM thinking?
i ask again, has anyone been able to figure out a way to avoid SOM thinking?
Hi Lithien
it seems to me that only by the careful phrasing of language can we skirt
around the issue of subject/object thinking, and in order to do that we must
first agree on the proper terminology. the only way to agree in this way is
to re-examine many of the primary assumptions we make in dealing with
reality in an everyday fashion.
this examination entails looking into just what subject/object thinking is
and how it has come to dominate our realities. Pirsig realized this when he
focused on ancient Greece and the foundation of our western cultures way of
thinking. i think there is much value in attempting to look at quantum
theory and the arguements that enabled people with different philosophical
notions like Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein and Werner Heisenberg to come
together and formulate a theory that works.
to this end, i think concepts like Bodvars SOTAQI have much value as well in
pointing out how the subject/object interaction in everyday life can relate
to the metaphysics of quality. but we must also remember language is merely
an abstraction of what we call reality and hence perhaps it is ultimately
limited in what can be conveyed. i certainly cant say that for sure though!
best wishes to all
glove
http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/index-2.html
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST