David, I realize the big "M" indicates a metaphysics. But a metaphysics that is uniformly accepted is what makes a society. You could say that it's the operating system (software) that the society (hardware) runs on.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:13 PM, david <[email protected]> wrote: > John said: > SOM is a social pattern. > > > Arlo replied: > I've been avoiding this, and I think Dan gave a great reply already, but > since you're saying this again let me say, "no". "SOM" is an intellectual > pattern of values that holds subjects and/or objects and primary > metaphysical entities. > > dmb says: > Thanks, Arlo. I agree. SOM is the root cause of a defect in rationality. > It refers to an ontological dualism and yes, as the name indicates so > clearly, "subject-object metaphysics" is a philosophical term. It's > associated with the modern Western scientific worldview but the roots of it > can be traced all the way back to the first Greek philosophers, as Pirsig > and others have shown. The notion that it's a social pattern is real > head-scratcher, I think. > > > In order to keep the levels discrete, perhaps it'd be better to call what I'm talking about SOP. A Subject/Object Philosophy - to designate the underlying assumptions of a social order. Also designates a Standard Operating Procedure and the intellectual problem comes in when that procedure is reified metaphysically. Would that be any better? So the question remains, is this SOP inevitable? Or would a value-centric metaphysics dictate a different social order? If so, what would that look like and if not, what are we doing here? 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
