Andre,
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > John to Andre: > > Is SOM inextricably tied to modern society? > > Andre: > Look John, 'modern society' is the way it is. J: I'm so grateful for your valued insight gleaned from your years contribution, Andre. A: > Is this perspective based on a subject-object metaphysics? No, because a > SOM does not accept the reality of values. J: I'm not gonna whip out any sort of direct Lila quote on ya Andre cuz the file a MD homie shipped me is gone and lost on a past laptop dead. But you're wrong. The essence of the Giant is SOM and if you can't see that then I don't even know what you're doing here. The truth of the projective judgement being a mirror holds true once again. It's YOU who doesn't understand the MoQ. Not one whit. Andre: > SOM _simply_ says that only subjects and objects are real. > J: SOM says values are subjective. SOM says subjects are real. Therefore, SOM must say that values are real and you are contradicting yourself. For sure it's you who doesn't understand what SOM is or what the MoQ means or is about. A: > I think the first quote dmb provides by Livingstone captures it well: > pragmatism and postmodernism: > "...do not believe that thoughts and things inhabit different ontological > orders: they do not acknowledge an external or natural realm of objects, of > things-in-themselves, which is ultimately impervious to, or fundamentally > different than, thought or mind or consciousness. Accordingly, they escape > the structure of meanings built around the modern subjectivity, which > presupposes the self's separation or cognitive distance from this reified > realm of objects." > > J: Yes. It's amazing to me that I can post a definition of SOM that states all this very plainly, and then get bombarded with similar definitions to teach me what I already understand. Methinks this teaching is more about elevating the status of the teacher than the student. John: > No problem here. The fact that the self is derived (from social, > intellectual, biological patterns) is not a problem for me. The assertion > that the self does therefore not exist, is. > > Andre: > And here you are doing it again John. This is NOT what the MoQ argues. The > self is NOT derived from the patterns (here we enter the realm of self/ego > formation, internalization and objectification something our parents, > conventional authority, religion and the education system is very good in). > > We ARE those patterns. Nothing derived from...we are the patterns. You > argue a 'separation' and 'cognitive distance' from the patterns (see dmb's > quote above). You thereby reify them and set yourself apart from > everything. This is SOM as well and something the MoQ obviously disagrees > with. > > J: No you are wrong. You make a judgement of me, perhaps, generalizing from yourself. But the separation is only one of convenience - a tool, as it were - that enables communication with others. But the self is one, a unity composed of all its elements or it's a demented being. Which are you? My sense of my self is derived from my experience on biological, social and intellectual levels. The sense of separation is an intellectual exercise necessary for abstraction and communication necessary for dialogue and hopefully further illumination. But it seems that the goals around here are not fair-minded construal and sharing but one-upmanship and ego competition so I guess I'm barking up the wrong tree. I get the MoQ. I don't get MD at all. > John: > > So to recapitulate: your, David's and Dan's view (and Pirsig's in your > opinion) that the Giant - and social systems in general, work according to > no conscious plan or guidance and just sort of evolve? > > Andre: > Strange conclusion to make John and I smell Ham in here (with his > intelligent design) and/or some sort of religiously conceived plan. I mean > 'work according to a plan'? What plan? You mean an intelligently conceived > plan? And when did this plan start then? You mean to say that before the > beginning of the earth, before the sun and the stars were formed, before > the primal generation of everything, this intelligent, conscious plan > existed?...Sitting there, having no mass or energy of its own, not in > anyone's mind because there wasn't anyone, not in space because there was > no space either- this intelligent, conscious plan existed? > If that plan existed I honestly don't know what a thing has to do to be > /non/existent. It seems to me that this intelligent conscious plan has > passed every test of nonexistence there is. There is no single attribute of > nonexistence that that plan doesn't have. Or a single scientific attribute > of existence it does have. And yet you still believe that it exists? > (freely adopted from ZMM,p32-3) > > J: I was asking a question. My original assumption was that the Giant evolved according to SOM-influenced social evolution. You and your crew jumped on me for not understanding the MoQ and said the Giant (standing in for social organizations in general) does not operate according to SOM as it's a completely different "thing" and on a different level. You all say that the levels are in competition not cooperation so it's impossible that SOM has formed the Giant. Or maybe I'm construing unfairly. At this point I have to admit I'm a bit confused by WHAT you think. > John: > > Are the evolutionary impulses mysterious or are they explicable? Can they > by encapsulated by some label and can you (or Dan or David or Pirsig) then > answer my question as to their necessity? > > Andre: > The MoQ suggests that evolution occurred due to 'spur of the moment > decisions' based on Dynamic Quality i.e. undefined betterness. > J: Ok but this betterness DOES instantiate as SQ and within the levels or we wouldn't even be able to talk about it at all. Therefore I'd like to consider the ways and means of inter-relation; especially in the art of relation between the 3rd and the 4th. I don't expect to get bombarded by charges of "you just don't get the MOQ" all the time simply because my questions and searchings go beyond the normal orthodoxy of interpretation, prevalent amongst MDer's and most particularly you and dmb. Fair enough? And now I'll let you quote at me some more stuff I've already read and already know. A: 'Dynamic Quality is not structured and yet it is not chaotic. It is value > that cannot be contained by static patterns. What the substance-centered > evolutionists were showing with their absence of final 'mechanisms' or > 'programs' was not an air-tight case for the biological goallessness of > life. {nor goal of life programs of divine ordination or Ham's essential > intelligent design, for that matter). What they were unintentionally > showing was [that]...the patterns of life are constantly evolving in > response to something 'better' than that which these [physical] laws (or > intellectual design plans) have to offer. (Anthony's PhD, p 91) > > That 'label' you are looking for John: Dynamic Quality. > J: DQ is definitionless and therefore metaphysically label-less. He makes one last attempt somehow to be nice at the next session of the class but the Chairman isn't having any. Phædrus asks him to explain a point, saying he hasn't been able to understand it. He has, but thinks it would be nice to defer a little. The answer is "Maybe you got tired!" delivered as scathingly as possible; but it doesn't scathe. The Chairman is simply condemning in Phædrus that which he most fears in himself. As the class goes on Phædrus sits staring out the window feeling sorry for this old shepherd and his classroom sheep and dogs and sorry for himself that he will never be one of them. Then, when the bell rings, he leaves forever J 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
