Happy Greetings Ham, It's good to hear from you. I changed the subject line because this is a completely different subject than schooling. But it is a subject I want to get into. In fact, it's THE subject of interest to me at the moment. And I can't argue it with Bo because he's got his SOL blinders on (SOM is the 4th level. Full Stop!)
>> J: I'm not exactly sure what a "non-dual perspective" would see, but >> about >> the Giant I agree and have a question for you, and in fact, for anybody >> who >> can answer. Isn't it a de facto necessity that the Giant MUST operate >> according to a SOM system? It seems that a values perspective would of >> necessity be operating on a shifting scale of shades of gray and what the >> system requires is a binary decision process of simple black and white in >> order to function. >> > > I think this is exactly right. We do live in a relational world where > values are experienced on "a shifting scale of shades of gray." And if > "black and white" are your standards of measurement, then your decision > (value choice) will depend on where the matter in question appears on that > scale. > > J: Okay... and the social system depends upon the existence of individual subject and objects to be concrete things, in order for laws and regulations to take hold and have effect - i.e. government. Overthrowing SOM then, implies overthrowing government and how is that gonna happen? Not by gentle persuation, that's for sure. John prev: > It just seems the checks and balances of competing selves that make up the >> body of the Giant, requires the metaphysical underpinning of a certain >> absoluteness of subject and object. I ask because lately it occurs to me >> that the urge to "change the system" is inherently a lost cause. I'd like >> to know for sure if that is so or not. >> > > Ham: > "Giant" is Pirsig's metaphor for the System, and a system is always the > order we make of disparate components -- the infrastructure of relational > existence. We can rearrange the components or alter their characteristics, > but this is akin to shifting deck chairs on the Titanic. The "absolute" > you are looking for is the unity of subject and object. > > John: I agree as long as it's understood that unity is not a negation. That is, the inseperable unity of subject and object does not imply a negation of either except as independent absolutes. Ham: > I have just read a remarkable paperback by Gerald Schroeder, an > MIT-trained nuclear scientist who has worked in both physics and biology. > It's titled 'The Hidden Face of God: Science reveals the Ultimate Truth,' > and it may offer the approach you need. Schroeder's thesis is that the > laws of nature operate according to a creative intelligence that transcends > scientific theory. As Schroeder explains, we now know not only that behind > matter lies energy, but also that behind energy lies the essential "wisdom" > of creation. (You'll find my review along with a sample of Schroeder's > argument on this week's Value Page at www.essentialism.net/valuepage.htm.) > > John: your link didn't work, btw. :) Ham: Scientists no longer question the intelligent design of the universe. Some > have called this wisdom the power of "information". I use the term > "Essence" and liken it to the Absolute Sensibility on which existence is > based. John: I know I've pointed this out before, Ham, but that's very similar to Royce's Absolute Mind from his early writings but it seems to me that conceptualizing a single absolute does kind of negate the relation which brings it to be. Dwayne Tunstall, President of the Royce Society made this point at a conference I was lucky enough to attend. (they held it in my home town) Ham: As negates of Essence, human beings are endowed with the value-sensibility > that makes us autonomous creatures > subject to the laws of nature, yet capable of being the 'choicemakers' of > our world. John: Maybe that's correct, but I hate to think of myself as any kind of "negate" It just sounds so negative. And about choice, I believe it's underived. Choice has to be at least as fundamental as Quality because without choice, there is no good. Ham: > I believe Pirsig has overlooked that fact that, despite our inability to > experience this ultimate Essence, it is individuals who create the Giant, > and it is our "static patterns of value" that drive the System. > > John: I don't agree with your first assertion, but I certainly agree that the giant is composed of individuals. What's key is not individuality tho but the quality of that composition. Some composers are better than others. Ham: Has this reply suggested a solution to your quandary, John? If so, I would > be happy to > put it all together for you. > > John: I'm partially satisfied. I want to hear the ideas of others; unless our ideas are persuasive they cannot be real. It's good to talk with you Ham. Glad you're still kick'n against the status quo. Society needs those. 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/md/archives.html
