Bo > Ah. But will it never dawn on you that SOM is a great value, it has > brought the "patterns" mentioned in LILA - modernity for short - I am not discounting the progress that SOM science helped create. I do object however to the deification of science which suggests that it is the highest, only, and most moral of all human knowledge except for Dynamic Quality.
> but that all ills stems from the S/O divide being regarded as existences > fundament, that the split between subject and object, between > mind/matter is a bottomless abyss. Mind is WORD, a placeholder, a designation all for the stuff (thoughts emotions, intuition, reasoning etc) that is going on in the human brain. Whether you call that stuff, mind, or information, or data, or social and intellectual patterns of value it is still by and large invisible and unknowable to anyone but the thinker unless he/she is in direct conversation with another thinker. But the vast majority of that "thinking stuff" is now accessed through the products, the physical artifacts produced by those thinkers. Where this "bottom abyss" is I don't know. I have never experienced it except as claims by other thinkers, mainly you, who fear it exists. Reminds me of "Hell", I file those claims under "God Talk" >That a material world goes its > course governed by natural laws totally independent and indifferent to > our subjective - mental - ideas about it. The cake can be kept and > eaten by its "M" being removed and the S/O relegated the role of > MOQ's 4th level which - regardless of being the highest static good still > is subordinated the DQ/SQ constellation. If find it ironic that at the very time that science started to come to its senses and say, "Wait folks our knowledge is not all knowing, all powerful. We may be able to find out specific facts about nature that does not mean we know in view of these facts how you ought to act." We have your interpretation of Pirsig (which could be a true one) saying no, no, scientific patterns of value are the only, highest, most moral stable patterns of value and they have the moral authority to dominant all human action on this world. Isn't this what the Soviets said? I remember when I first read this it made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Still does, maybe more. > [Lila-Pg 77] > That's what neither the socialists nor the capitalists ever got figured out. > From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism. It's a > higher form of evolution. It is an intellectually guided society, not just a > society that is guided by mindless traditions. That's what gives socialism its > drive. But what the socialists left out and what has all but killed their > whole undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality. Take this and then look at it in context with the following quote. >[Lila-Pg 78] > And beyond that is an even more compelling reason: societies and thoughts and > principles themselves are no more than sets of static patterns. These patterns > can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being > can do that. The strongest moral argument against capital punishment is that > it weakens a society's Dynamic capability - its capability for change and > evolution. It's not the 'nice' guys who bring about real social change. 'Nice' > guys look nice because they're conforming. How did these "intellectual guided societies" come about? "Intellectual theories" of Marx, Lenin, and others that spelled out in no uncertain terms that "workers" (primarily urban industrial workers) shall KILL all of the ruling elite, any underlying intellectual groups that support them, any other groups that might ferment a counter revolution, and a kind of catchall category for everybody else, "those who are not pulling their weight." Did RMP bother to mention 'killing' in terms of real people? Naw, it the theory that counts. Its lack of success was that central control of the economics "killled" dynamics. Killing or jailing people that opposed your authority let's make a science out of that. The experiment of science having the sole moral authority over societies has already been carried. The bone fields in Russia, China, Cambodia and other places are testaments to its success. Now if you are arguing for this from and ecological perspective of human population control you might have something. Now I full understand that your country has had some successes with socialism. But overall the record in the ground has been quite dismal. Socially Yours Dave Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
