LS Re: Rambling on intellect and life


Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@vip.cybercity.dk)
Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:31:25 +0100


Doug,

thanks for your kind words. On your question:

>I have just one comment on detail. You say, near the end, below, and I
>quote -
>
>"And SOM is not simply subsumed as a part of MoQ, because SOM arose from
>neglect of the presumed subject-object split, diverging because of this,
>and there is no ground for this diversion in MoQ or some similar
>metaphysics."
>
>Are you saying that SOM is subsumed, but that the subsumption is
>complex, not simple? Or are you saying that SOM is essentially not
>subsumed in MoQ? Or did I miss a deeper semantic here?
>
>To me, and I infer this in your words, the S-O schism heals through
>unification and inversion in the MoQ's four levels of SPoVs. I think
>this is what Bo and I both feel and Bo described as 'seamless'
>subsumption within MoQ.

Yes, what I wanted to say was that MoQ is not just a subsumption of SOM, in
the way, that everything which was done based on SOM will be done the same
way based on MoQ. That is, MoQ is not only a larger frame, like General
relativity subsuming Newtons theory of gravity, MoQ is also a
transfomation. Things will be done differently in many respects, even in
most parts of science, I think. But I agree that, as metaphysics, MoQ
provides an understanding of most other metaphysics, and in this respect
subsumes these, as Pirsig argues somewhere.

Did this answer your question?

Hugo

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:56 CEST