Hi Dan, > > >> > >> Yes I have heard ZMM described as a counter-culture book which is > >> unfortunate. > >> > >> > > J: I kind of like the label. Especially in a culture as screwed up as > > this. > > [Dan] > It must be the SOM. > > J: SOM is the is at the root of the culture and is in fact, the cultural assumptions reified. We all make the assumptions of subject and object in our daily intercourse with the world and thus it's pragmatically useful to take those patterns as absolute and real - that's what SOM is. It's the rules of society turned into metaphysical absolutes.
As a much wiser than me has said: Realism (SOM), in addition to being an effort to meet the general problem of Being, is also the product and expression of essentially Social motives and interests. It is socially convenient, for purely practical reasons, to regard my fellow as a being whose mind shall be wholly independent, as to its inner being, of my own knowledge about my fellow. This view of the social relation is indeed suggested by well-known experiences, but in its ideally extreme forms, it is warranted by no experience, and is actually contradicted by every case of the communication of mind with mind. But we also find it socially convenient to view the common objects of our human and social knowledge as independent both of my fellow and myself, even while we still view these objects as the same for both of us, and for all other actual and possible human observers. And so, in the end, we conceive these common objects, abstractly, as independent of all knowing processes whatever. Royce, The World and the Individual Now there are detractors of Royce around here I admit - but this argument that Josiah makes here he gives explicit credit to F.H. Bradley, of whose philosophy Pirsig himself said, could be harmonized with the MoQ. And this certainly gives support to my premise that SOM is related to modern society and not some kind of pattern floating around independent of society. > J: Yes, but it's use and promulgation was by a culture which was. > Somewhat akin to the way scientific knowledge when it > falls into the grasp of politicians. Dan: > Yes, those evil politicians are second only to the academics seeking > to subvert the world with their knowledge. > > J: I think most Academicians are cool people. The kind of people I like, people devoting their lives to ideas. And a great deal of the Academy is devoted to historical archiving so that if there wasn't the Academy there wouldn't be any classics or intellectual patterns at all Politicians on the other hand... > > > J: If you look at those patterns in isolation, you're right. But this > is > > what I'm trying to impart - patterns do not instantiate in isolation. > They > > resonate and influence each other on multiple levels. Disease is a > merely > > biological pattern in and of itself but coupled with intellectually > > influenced society which traverses the globe in machines of power, it's > > effect is more than merely biological. > > Dan: > You are mixing metaphors here but then again I suspect that is your > problem all along. > > J: I don't know what my problem is but if you are the kind of guy who hates things mixed up, then I'm probably yours. I'm not real fond of neat little answers all lined up. I'm not interested in perpetuating some orthodoxy. I'm interested in emphasizing the pursuit of DQ, not SQ. > Dan: (speaking of Ham) >> > > >> Again, he doesn't care about the MOQ. I challenge you to read any of >> his contributions here and tell me that he understands the least >> fundamental idea about it. >> >> > J: I cannot accept the idea that somebody who chooses to persist in > interaction and discussion as many years as Ham has, doesn't care. > > Maybe you just feel bad because you can't explain it better? :) Dan: > Yeah, that's gotta be it. Ham is undoubtedly the resident expert on > the MOQ. It is a wonder he didn't write the book before Robert Pirsig. > I don't know what I'm even doing here besides wasting time. You should > be addressing these questions to him as he would be better able to > explain them than I could ever hope to do. > J: I've enjoyed a lively dialog with Ham. I don't understand why a discussion of Quality (Caring) should be so demonizing and rancorous. That's a mystery I'd like to understand. But then I don't know why Marsha was so hated either. You either respect another person's words enough to take them seriously or you don't. Why get mad about it? > > > > >> J: I have a hard time divorcing the idea of the individual completely > > from > >> the patterns. > > > > Dan: > >> People are never divorced from the patterns. People are the patterns. > >> What the MOQ is saying is that social patterns are not made up of > >> groups of humans. Perhaps I could have been clearer by saying groups > >> of individuals but the 's' at the end seemed to signify that. > >> > >> > > J: A mere group of humans would be like a mob, or a hive of bees. The > > social patterns that guide most human activity are much more complex > than > > that. I agree. > > Dan: > A group of humans has nothing to do with social patterns. Nada. I'm > not sure you even understand what you're agreeing with but I'm certain > it has to do with my inability to discern higher intelligence. > > J: A "group" as in "a collection of individuals" is not what I mean by a society or social patterning. I thought that was what I was agreeing with. > Dan: > I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that craftsmanship was > art. I'm sure Ham will have a more MOQ-satisfactory answer than I > could hope for. Anyway, it has been fun. > > Well I'm glad to hear that. The craftmanship vs art argument I've had with Arlo. It's the difference between a valuable painting and a perfect forgery. Crafty has some pejorative connotations that artful doesn't. Yours, John 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
