Dear Ham,
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Hamilton Priday <[email protected]>wrote: > > John -- > > I'm trying to understand your dilemma, if that's the proper term, > concerning the relation of the individual to his society. I guess I've > never looked at society (or government, for that matter) as a benefactor or > 'Giant' in the Pirsigian sense. > You say that the social system depends on individuals, which is a de facto > truth. It is also true that the individual, unless he or she is a recluse > or adventurer, is dependent on some "concrete" things -- food, water, > power, etc. -- that the social system provides. J: Not to mention the fact that all human life depends upon a society of at least two, heh-heh. Ham: > Although few people are totally self-sufficient in today's society, I > don't see that fulfilling individual needs through goods and/or services > purchased by the rewards of their labor makes the Individual and society a > "co-dependent" entity per se. > > J: I know you don't. It's not on that level that they are co-dependent. It's at the level of definition and conceptualization - the 4th level. The individual cannot "see" (conceive) himself except in the context of a society. For the individual, the society is it's other, else which there is no being. No being for either. For without a real self, an individual - a society is not a being either. If there is no individuality at all, then everything is an individual one - made of constituent parts - your essential way of looking at things I think? And all this is just variants of self-other, subject object philosophy if we don't heed that all-important third - the value between the individual and the society. That values-between is what the MoQ is about. What is tiresome to me, are those who conclude from the significance of valuation, that it completely negates it's creations - the individual and his society. They are positive creations, not negates. NOT (not this, not that) something, not nothing and a distinction arising from betterness. To assert that there is no self is to undo all that good value. Ham: > Nor do I believe, as Andre apparently does, that "There is a moral code > that establishes the supremacy of social order over biological life ... > [and] moral codes over the social order." In other words, I don't believe > in a world that is moral by divine or executive fiat. For, if that were > so, there would be no quest for moral virtue, no human need to discriminate > between the good, the bad, and the indifferent. > J: Well there I think Andre is right and you are wrong. Moral virtue *is*a quest because reality *is* a moral order. The fact that morality includes bad and indifferent, must be a good thing, because it plainly is. The problem of evil is practically unsolvable unless we accept that those evils instruct us in the wisdom of our struggle for the good. I hate to get into that subject, it's one that Royce and James struggled bitterly over and I can't imagine what to add to their arguments. Ham: > If this is Pirsig's vision of the universe, he is sorely mistaken. It is > my belief that we exist in an amoral universe, and that man is granted > value sensibility for the specific purpose of realizing and defining > Essential Value in relational terms. > > J: Granted by whom? It must be some kind of higher moral authority doing the granting, Ham, so how can you assert so assuredly that our universe is amoral? I don't get the reasoning behind that conclusion one bit. I'll be quite happy to hear it. Cordially, John PS: I'm eager to hear your opinion upon my definition of SOM/comparison with Philosophical Realism. 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
