LS Re: PROGRAM Explain the subject-object metaphysics

Magnus Berg (
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 10:43:41 +0100

Hi Donny and Squad

You wrote:
> All three of these distinctions are conflated in P's use of S-O.
> I
> think he does this w/o realizing it because I haven't found a place that
> justifys this.
> So what does P mean by S-O?
> Well we can say he *primarily* means #1... but sometimes #2, and
> once or twice it sounds like #3.

Pirsig doesn't explicitly state which one he means because he simply
doesn't mean any of them. He means the underlying assumption of all
three, and then some. Like Hugo said, it's "Not deliberately, knowingly,
but in the form of a tacit, not questioned, prerequisite.".

The hard part is to see this underlying assumption. Pirsig writes in
Lila that every member of our society is handed a pair of glasses with
which we look at reality. Pirsig took them off, and he helped us take
ours off too.

I don't know how to take them off, but as Hugo said, seeing them must be
the first step.

What really bugs me is that people with the glasses have no idea what
I'm talking about. For them it probably sounds like Donny's "We are
saved, you are damned.". So I think we must come up with two
explanations, one in MoQese and one in SOMese.


"I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good"
                                N. Peart - Rush

post message -
unsubscribe/queries -
homepage -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:06 CEST