John said to Dan:
I know what a social pattern is.
John to Ham:
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.
John to Dan:
I find Pirsig to be very clear and understandable and I don't have any
trouble understanding him.
Andre:
Well John, if Dan or dmb cannot persuade you into realizing your error
just remember what Pirsig says about the social level:
'Societies are subjective. No objective instrument can detect a society'
(see Annot. 18)
This is pretty much what Dan and dmb have been telling you. This is one
reason why Pirsig, writing the MoQ did not focus on any specific
society. He 'subsumed' it in 'social patterns of value' and within this
level of the MoQ hierarchy there are no bodies found anywhere. In other
words, one should not see a society as consisting of individual human
bodies/people.
Annotation 19 should make this clear:
'In /Lila, /societies are...patterns that emerge from and are
superimposed upon organic bodies of people, but they are not
combinations of these organic bodies of people'.
And, for good measure here is Annotation 29:
'The MoQ...denies any existence of a 'self' independent of inorganic,
biological, social or intellectual patterns. There is no 'self' that
contains these patterns. These patterns contain the self. This denial
agrees with both religious mysticism and scientific knowledge...'
(Lila's Child p 64-5)
Combine these three and your notion that the Giant operates from a
subject-object point of view just evaporates...dissolves. And I hope a
lot more confused bits and pieces you are grappling with at the moment
are cleared up as well.
And Ham will only confuse you more John. He has his own agenda.
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
