dmb, I may start out confusedly and thrash around at first but over time I see the points of confusion more clearly and I can clarify my terms. Thanks for helping me do this and sorry for the inconvenience. I think I've got it now.
John On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:13 AM, david <[email protected]> wrote: > dmb said to John: > 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? > > > J: Society is ruled by laws and the laws evolved from authority being objective about its subject. In a muslim society the laws evolve from a different set of metaphysical beliefs - that reality is the will of Allah and man's duty is revealed to his prophet Mohammed. Different cultural assumptions and thus different > > John replied: > I guess I'm still confused. Isn't this just asserting that SOM is in > charge of society? ...this statement above claims that SOM has inherited > this task. So that just makes my point - SOM is in charge of the Giant. > Now my question about this is whether this relationship between SOM and the > Giant might actually be a necessary relation. That is, a different kind of > metaphysics would produce a different kind of society. > > dmb says: > Yes, you're confused. You're still mixing up the operative terms and doing > so to such a degree that you think I'm making your point. Again, SOM is > intellectual and the giant is social. The giant does not and cannot operate > according to ANY intellectual pattern. That way of putting it doesn't make > sense. > > We can't equate the Giant with society or culture in general because > society or culture in general is comprised of BOTH social and intellectual > values. Let me say that again because it's central to the confusion; > society is comprised of BOTH social and intellectual values.The Giant is > JUST the social values in society, which may or may not dominate that > society. Pirsig thinks intellectual values should guide society, not the > Giant. Then the question is about what kind of intellectual values (SOM or > MOQ) are going to be in charge. Either way, the Giant will continue to be > the social level values. The Giant will be tamed, so to speak, but it will > still operate according to its own level of values. You know, fame and > fortune, controlling the biological values for it own benefit, etc. > > Your questions always confuse these various elements and so those > questions are meaningless. There is no good way to answer a meaningless > question. All one can do is criticize the question so that's what I'm > doing. This question, for example, makes no sense: "If SOM has all the > power, then what can be done?" In what sense does SOM have "power"? > > > John said to dmb: > Yes, but if that expanded rationality lacks strength, relative to the SOM > rules which amplify ego and power, then it's not going to work. We need a > way of translating betterness (right) into power (might). I don't see any > clear way to that. > > > dmb says: > Here is another example of a question that cannot be answered but can be > criticized. Again, I think the question confuses the levels. It's hard to > see how any kind of rationality could have strength or power or might but > there's another glaring problem too. Your question contains an assertion > that confuses the levels: You says SOM rules amplify ego and power. But ego > and power are social level values, like fame and fortune, celebrity and > wealth, all the social manners and conspicuous consumption of the > Victorians. Ego and power are the rules of the Giant, not SOM. You keep > treating them as if they were married (and keep asking if they inextricably > linked) but they're actually quite blind to each other. So the whole line > of questions is predicated on one false premise after another. I can't > untangle them all but this link between SOM and ego/power screamed at me. > > dmb had said: > AND, I would add, since Pirsig and others have already rejected SOM we can > see that it's not necessary or inevitable. > > > John replied: > Sure, you could choose to live like an Indian. But if you want real > power, then maybe it is necessary to live in a repressive society. And > strive to be on the oppressive side rather than the oppressed. Sure we can > ignore all that - it's called "being philosophical about things" But does > this get anything done? This is the crux of my conundrum. > > dmb says: > I don't see how your response has anything to do with the point you're > supposedly addressing, probably because I have no idea what you're saying. > > > > > > 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 > 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
