John said to dmb:
...thanks for hammering it into my thick skull that you both assert that the
Giant does NOT operate according to a SOMish framework. I've been of the
opinion that it does. So that must be the bone of contention then. In my view
every society has, as it's unspoken or spoken assumptions, a metaphysical
underpinning of some kind or other. Western modernity has SOM as its
foundation. The Giant as Pirsig described it, is an aspect of Western
Modernity. Where am I wrong in my reasonings?
dmb says:
You're mixing up the levels, as I already tried to explain a day or two ago...
"Pirsig makes a case that intellectual values should be in charge of society
BUT, he says, there is a flaw (genetic defect) in the form of rationality that
has inherited this task. That is where the problem of SOM resides. I think
maybe you want to refer to SOM as the intellectual level values that rule
society, but not as social values. You see the difference? The culture is
comprised of both social and intellectual values and the question in Lila is
"which one is going to run the show?" So one of the biggest questions is how to
expand rationality beyond SOM so that society has better leadership, so to
speak. That's what the MOQ is, basically. A picture of that expanded
rationality, one that can lead society without the problems of SOM,.."
AND, I would add, since Pirsig and others have already rejected SOM we can see
that it's not necessary or inevitable. It has already begin with philosophers
and such. But I suppose nobody can know whether or not the MOQ or some other
alternative will eventually become the common view. These things take time.
And, in a way, the MOQ is breathing new life into some of the oldest ideas,
cutting a new path up the same mountain we've always climbed.
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
