Bo I agree when you say: LILA starts with some anthropologic reasoning, how impossible > the Boas and Mead "objective" approach is without having Value as > their premises. Ian McLean brought this LILA quote in the "Bottom up > creation .." thread > > "And yet, although Jefferson called this doctrine of social > equality "self-evident," it is not at all self-evident. ...There's no > nation in Europe that doesn't trace its history to a time when it > was "self-evident" that all men are created unequal. ...The idea > that 'all men are created equal" is a gift to the world from the > American Indian." -end of Ch. 3, Lila > > But I wonder what you mean when you say "silly detours". And what is "socially equal" mean? Perhaps you meant "equally social" as in primarily oriented around social patterns of life and being.
But then that's pretty much non-nomadic people too. And modern people, for that matter. All people for all time are socially oriented. Nowhere in any history of man has it been seen either chimps or men faced the rigors of life and nature as individuals. Troops, tribes, nations and bowling clubs, that's been how we do it forever. > This is one of Pirsig's many silly detours. All nomadic people are > socially equal, but this is clearly not from the deeper cultural upheaval > which is described as SOM in ZAMM and corresponds to the > intellectual level in LILA where all examples of intellectual patterns are > born of the "objective-over-subjective" attitude. > Course the "old Europe" - after the Dark Ages - were feudal, but > SOM's rebounce by the Renaissance slowly caused the true Q- > intellect-based equality. > > I would agree completely, except I have no idea what you are saying. I mean, I can sort of construe a meaning from your statement, but then the meaning I construe is so "out of bounds" ridiculous that I can't imagine that is your actual position after so many years of exposure to the quality writings and dialogue of the MoQ Discussss-ss. In the story of SOM,values are real - they are "only" subjective. Phaedrus rejected the subjective horn, if he'd grabbed onto it, he would have been accepted. All it needed was an excise of an "only " and he was almost there in the warm embrace of academia. If all tribes are socially equal, then all values are equal, thus no "real" value actually exists. He rejected it for the reason that he found that idea immoral. I used to agree with him in that regard, but with my recent avatarian personality upgrade, I have to realize he was barking up the wrong tree and he would have been more socially acceptable (which is the only real value that there is) and not had to suffer the effects of going off in a completely different direction than the whole rest of the world. > To suggest the nomadic Amerindians' social equality being identical > with the intellectual level's "democracy, human rights, freedom of > speech, trial by jury, independent judicial system ...etc... " is nonsense. > You are so right. The two systems were miles apart in many importantly fundamental ways. For one thing, the intellectual level was infected with a strong dose of the christian teaching of the inherent sinfulness of men. Thus the adversarial system and the whole liberal emphasis upon individuals competing for resource. The indians had a democratic style that presupposed all those who had something to say, were good men. Thus they had patience to hear all sides and willingness to be open-minded. Thus when the indians came in contact with the intellectual level white men, they were being subjected to assumptions of "inherent evil" that were as inappropriate applied to themselves as their own assumption that the white men they were dealing with were just ordinary, good human beings who realized that all life is value. Of such elements are tragedy's created. > Even sillier is it to suggest that the Indians - in addition - having > achieved some Q-like stance. Admittedly, social existence is value- > based, but the Quality overview is supposed to emerge from a well- > developed SOM. > > Right again. Social existence is value -based. But then, yeah, everything is from an MoQ perspective, which I am beginning to wonder if you have ever grasped... but that's beside the point when you make so many excellent points. When you say "is supposed to emerge", what supposition supports this supposition? Who or what is doing the supposing? And what is a well-developed SOM when it's at home with the kids? Isn't a "well-developed SOM" just another term for a SOM that has about reached the end of its rope? In that case, the MoQ arises out of desperation rather than supposition. > And that's all for today > > Bodvar > > I completely agree, John 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/
