Fintan Dunne (findunne@iol.ie)
Wed, 27 May 1998 03:15:35 +0100
Date: 26 May 98
Time: ....is Now!
Hi Squad,
There are three way we can define SOM: Within it's own terms,
In terms of Quality, and in terms which encompass both.
Dianas' definition satisfies the first: SOM in SOM terms, but
we still have to build a bridge to our corresponding
definition of the MOQ.
Horse defines SOM in an MOQ frame of reference:
"Any SOM reduces Value/Quality to 'mere' opinion."
This will require explaining to the SOMists.
Perhaps we could define SOM and MOQ in a common frame of
reference. This is my attempt:
Subject and Objects and Dualism have been seen as the defining
characteristics of the SOM by us Pirsigists' for so long, that it
was with no small aprehension that I read:
Bo: "Didn't Pirsig say SOM was an MOQ split S-O not DQ-SQ."
Jonathan: "MOQ has Object events and Subjects who match patterns."
Shock! horror!, Bo contaminates the MOQ with a dualism and then
Jonathan compounds it by also placing subject/object at the heart
of the MOQ. But after analysis, I had to admit some validity of both
statements. So, I can't as readily scoff at the SOM for containing
Sub/Obj/Dual if these are in the MOQ.
Moreover, splitting reality into S-O is valid if we accept:
Ken: "All life lives in a shell, so S-O is inbred in nature"
So that begs the question: If the main mistake in the SOM is NOT
that it split reality into S and O, then what WAS the main error they
made?
They made 3 errors.
First error:
They thought that the S-O split was: S <----Entropy------- O
In fact the S-O relationship is really: Q uality
--------------->
S O
<---------------
Entropy
In other words, the Q event involves an EXCHANGE of
entropy/data for Meaning/Quality. They only had only
one side of the process in their definition.
Second error:
They split S and O into seperate realms, so that S became Mind,
and O became Matter- two different substances- a schiziod Dualism.
In fact, S and O are the SAME substance: Pattern
Objects are- Pattern as Pattern
Subjects are- Pattern as Pattern Recognition Algorithm.(PRA)
Subjects are just a more evolved version of Objects. Because, as
patterns become complex they AUTOMATICALLY become PRAs
of varying sensitivity, due to having to defend their energy state
against entropy. A pattern like an Oxygen atom is also a PRA that
can recognise an incoming Pattern like an X-RAY, or another PRA-
like a Hydrogen atom. The roles of Subject & Object are both possible
for the PRA, ie the S<-->O relationship is an INTEGRATED Dualism.
Third Error:
They thought that reality was only one S<---O relationship. Where
the ONLY Subject is Man-Mind and the ONLY Object is Matter.
What total drivel !!!!
In fact, there are squintillions of S<--->O Relationships in reality,
in discernable levels/layers of abstraction.
MY DEFINITION IS:
The Subject-Object Metaphysics is the assumption that the ONLY
Subject (Pattern Recognition Algorithm) is Man and the ONLY
Object(Pattern) is Matter; that these two are of different substance
and communicate by Entropy/Data from Matter to Man.
The Metaphysics of Quality says that Pattern Recognition
Algorithm IS Pattern and grew from Pattern and both are products
of Quality. They exchange Quality and Entropy/Data with each other.
MY FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR BOTH SOM AND MOQ IS:
An analogy for what the SOMists did is: If you place an Apple
in front of a Mirror and look at it, you will see Two apples and
your Own reflection.
That's FOUR Entities not two:
1 The Real you (i)
2 The Real apple
3 The Idealised Apple (a-priori)
4 The Idealised You (I) (Mind)
The Subject<----Object Pair in the SOM: are items 4<--------3
in
Idealism: 1-------->3
in
Science: 4<--------2
The Subject<--->Object Pair in the MOQ: are items 2<------>1
I can't stand over some of these pairings yet as I have not done the
rigorous analysis, but you get the idea.
Regards
Fintan Dunne
findunne@iol.ie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:15 CEST