[MD] The Social aspect of SOM

[Hamilton Priday]

Hi John --

> 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!)

Thanks for replying -- whether under a new heading or not.  (I was afraid I 
had inadvertently deleted the message.)

John, previously:
>> 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.

Ham:
> 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.

John:
> 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 persuasion, that's for sure.

Society depends upon individual (not 'concrete'?) identities who 
collectively establish their moral standards, and ideally vote for 
representatives in government who will foster those standards.  (In my 
opinion, the less government the better.)

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 inseparable unity of subject and object does not imply a negation of
> either except as independent absolutes.

There are no “independent absolutes”, John.  Unity is not a negation but
separation (i.e., individuation) is.  And everything in existence, including its values,
is differentiated from every other.  The human being itself is a differentiated entity.  
There can be but one Absolute Source, and it “creates” otherness by negation.
(I use the analogy of the mountain climber who has ascended to the summit, for
whom further progress must be by descent.)  

Ham, prev:
> I have just read a remarkable paperback by Gerald Schroeder . . .
> (You'll find my review along with a sample of Schroeder's
> argument on this week's Value Page.)

John:  
> Your link didn't work, btw. :)

Sorry about that, because the Schroeder samples will be replaced with another subject on Sunday.  Guess I forgot the cap VP.  Try it again at www.essentialism.net/ValuePage.htm.  
(I tested this version on the draft copy and it worked.)

Ham, continued:
> 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)

Yes, there seem to be several Royce fans in this forum.  I’m not that familiar with
the philosopher, so don’t know exactly what his appeal is.  However, I am 
convinced that what we call “relation” is a mental (intellectual) construct of objective experience which derives from our sensibility to a “value scale”, much as you have described.  Human sensibility is intrinsically relational by the laws of nature; 
otherwise, we would be unable to see colors, enjoy music, localize objects, 
or socialize morality.  It is our individuated “minds” that make us cognizant beings;
but the Essence of our being is neither relative nor created.  

Again, what Schroeder calls “eternal wisdom” (and Pirsig calls “Dynamic Quality”) 
is the absolute unification of  Value and Sensibility.  You can forget duality and relativity in your conceptualized absolute.  As autonomous and sensible agents of Value, we provide the ‘otherness’ that completes the cycle of negation – an external, valuistic perspective of Absolute Essence.

Enjoy your weekend, John.

--Ham