Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Wed, 6 May 1998 06:59:47 +0100
Hi Folks
There doesn't seem to be much opposition to the idea that the SOM is
synonymous with Dualism. Most of the disagreement seems to be of the
form of "Which examples of Dualism belong to the SOM and which do
not".
We've seen from a number of posts that the idea of SOM, as a
Metaphysics, probably started with the Greeks - as per Pirsig P366
(Corgi Edition) ZMM.
The idea of SO consciousness/awareness (I/That, Self/Non-Self etc.)
existed prior to this in a number of forms.
Dualistic or pair-based belief systems also existed prior to this but
seems to have been explained in terms of religious/mythological
references - the Mythos of ZMM.
The transition period seems to be that period between (approximately)
600 BCE and 322 BCE (Thales -> Aristotle) after which there is what
Pirsig refers to as the Logos - the world view based upon Logic and
Rationality.
So what we have is multiple Dualisms which occur before and after the
Greek/Athenian/Ionian period.
Many of the questions that were posed prior to this period still
existed and were still being asked during and in the period that
followed from then until now.
I suppose that amongst the questions that need to be answered now as
part of the explanation of SOM are:
1) Which dualisms existed prior to the Rise of Rationality (RoR).
2) Which of the pre-RoR dualisms made it into the post-RoR period.
3) Which new dualisms were a direct result of RoR.
4) Which of the pre-RoR dualisms were subsumed by post-RoR dualisms.
5) Which of the post-RoR dualisms (SOM) still exist what part do they
play in the 20th Century academic edifice.
I'm sure that there are a number of other questions that could be
posed, but the main idea is to examine how the pre-RoR beliefs
(dualistic or otherwise) changed with the RoR - the Mythos to Logos
transition. Some obviously made it through and are still part of
western belief - Chaos/Order, Good/Evil etc. New dualisms arose,
Subject/Object, Mind Matter etc.
Which of these are part of the post-RoR metaphysics which we are
calling SOM.
When we refer to the SOM are we talking of purely either/or dualisms.
If the dualistic split is in terms of A *AND* NOT A then does it
belong in the SOM paradigm.
Another question that desperately needs answering is that of the
relevance of SOM in 20th century thought. This is not in terms
of the beliefs of the general public, but as part of the edifice
which we are supposed to be challenging - the
Scientific/Philosophical establishment, because if it is the case
that they have already made the break from SOM then who and what the
hell are we supposed to be challenging?
If we are to be taken seriously as a group that is questioning the
beliefs of an established order then what EXACTLY are the beliefs
that we are proposing to subsume and what EXACTLY is the system which
we are proposing.
Where reference is made to SOM in future postings, I think it would
be a good idea to state what form it takes and how it is relevant to
the question or criticism being posed.
If we are to take on the most powerful thought system that exists in
the western hemisphere then it would be a good idea to be
knowlegeable as to the weaknesses that are inherent in that system
and possible means of breaching its defences, otherwise we might as
well pack up and go home.
The MoQ has been attacked in the past and will assuredly be subject
to a full scale assault in the future.
KNOW YOUR ENEMY!
It can be done - any system is only as strong as its weakest link.
This also applies to the MoQ!
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
-- 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 - 16:43:14 CEST