From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 14:58:50 BST
Hi all,
Johnny Moral said:
> I think the problem is that sometimes people dismiss an argument as "SOM"
> because the person made the mistake of speaking of things as if they really
> existed, as if people really had experiences, etc. That just seems silly to
> me - people really do have experiences, things really exist.
Steve:
Can anyone define SOM? Has Pirsig given a concise description anywhere?
It seems like many of us take it to mean different things.
The following may apply:
LC annotation 65
³In the MOQ, nothing exists prior to the observation. The observation
creates the intellectual patterns called ³observed² and ³observer.² Think
about it. How could a subject and object exist in a world where there are
no observations?²
Steve:
As I see it, SOM includes the assumption of an 'objective reality' that
exists independent of awareness while the MOQ understanding includes this
'objective reality' as an inference from experience--an intellectual pattern
of value.
Do you agree? What other characteristics of SOM thinking distinguish it
from an MOQ understanding?
Thanks,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 15:11:09 BST