[MD] The Social aspect of SOM

[John Carl]

Happy Greetings Ham,

It's good to hear from you.  I changed the subject line because this is a
completely different subject than schooling.  But it is a subject I want to
get into.  In fact, it's THE subject of interest to me at the moment.  And
I can't argue it with Bo because he's got his SOL blinders on (SOM is the
4th level.  Full Stop!)




>> J:  I'm not exactly sure what a "non-dual perspective" would see, but
>> about
>> the Giant I agree and have a question for you, and in fact, for anybody
>> who
>> can answer.  Isn't it a de facto necessity that the Giant MUST operate
>> according to a SOM system?  It seems that a values perspective would of
>> necessity be operating on a shifting scale of shades of gray and what the
>> system requires is a binary decision process of simple black and white in
>> order to function.
>>
>
> I think this is exactly right.  We do live in a relational world where
> values are experienced on "a shifting scale of shades of gray."  And if
> "black and white" are your standards of measurement, then your decision
> (value choice) will depend on where the matter in question appears on that
> scale.
>
>
J:  Okay... and the social system depends upon the existence of individual
subject and objects to be concrete things, in order for laws and
regulations to take hold and have effect - i.e. government.  Overthrowing
SOM then, implies overthrowing government and how is that gonna happen?
Not by gentle persuation, that's for sure.


John prev:


>  It just seems the checks and balances of competing selves that make up the
>> body of the Giant, requires the metaphysical underpinning of a certain
>> absoluteness of subject and object.  I ask because lately it occurs to me
>> that the urge to "change the system" is inherently a lost cause.  I'd like
>> to know for sure if that is so or not.
>>
>
>
Ham:


> "Giant" is Pirsig's metaphor for the System, and a system is always the
> order we make of disparate components -- the infrastructure of relational
> existence.  We can rearrange the components or alter their characteristics,
> but this is akin to shifting deck chairs on the Titanic.   The "absolute"
> you are looking for is the unity of subject and object.
>
>
John:

I agree as long as it's understood that unity is not a negation.  That is,
the inseperable unity of subject and object does not imply a negation of
either except as independent absolutes.

Ham:


> I have just read a remarkable paperback by Gerald Schroeder, an
> MIT-trained nuclear scientist who has worked in both physics and biology.
>  It's titled 'The Hidden Face of God:  Science reveals the Ultimate Truth,'
> and it may offer the approach you need.  Schroeder's thesis is that the
> laws of nature operate according to a creative intelligence that transcends
> scientific theory.  As Schroeder explains, we now know not only that behind
> matter lies energy, but also that behind energy lies the essential "wisdom"
> of creation. (You'll find my review along with a sample of Schroeder's
> argument on this week's Value Page at www.essentialism.net/valuepage.htm.)
>
>

John:  your link didn't work, btw. :)

Ham:

Scientists no longer question the intelligent design of the universe.  Some
> have called this wisdom the power of "information".  I use the term
> "Essence" and liken it to the Absolute Sensibility on which existence is
> based.


John:  I know I've pointed this out before, Ham, but that's very similar to
Royce's Absolute Mind from his early writings but it seems to me that
conceptualizing a single absolute does kind of negate the relation which
brings it to be.  Dwayne Tunstall, President of the Royce Society made this
point at a conference I was lucky enough to attend. (they held it in my
home town)


Ham:

 As negates of Essence, human beings are endowed with the value-sensibility
> that makes us autonomous creatures
> subject to the laws of nature, yet capable of being the 'choicemakers' of
> our world.


John:  Maybe that's correct, but I hate to think of myself as any kind of
"negate"  It just sounds so negative.

And about choice, I believe it's underived.  Choice has to be at least as
fundamental as Quality because without choice, there is no good.

Ham:


>  I believe Pirsig has overlooked that fact that, despite our inability to
> experience this ultimate Essence, it is individuals who create the Giant,
> and it is our "static patterns of value" that drive the System.
>
>
John:  I don't agree with your first assertion, but I certainly agree that
the giant is composed of individuals.  What's key is not individuality tho
but the quality of that composition.  Some composers are better than others.


Ham:

Has this reply suggested a solution to your quandary, John?  If so, I would
> be happy to
> put it all together for you.
>
>
John:  I'm partially satisfied.  I want to hear the ideas of others; unless
our ideas are persuasive they cannot be real.


It's good to talk with you Ham.  Glad you're still kick'n against the
status quo.  Society needs those.

John