[MD] The Social aspect of SOM

[Hamilton Priday]

Hello Andre --

> Ham said to John:
> 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.

Andre:
> No Hamilton! Social patterns of value do NOT comprise 'individual 
> identities' and they certainly do NOT establish their 'moral standards'. 
> We are here discussing Pirsig's MoQ, not your essential psychological 
> need.

It was John who changed the subject line to SOM in order to part from the 
discussion on schooling.  I was attempting to address his concern about a 
"de facto necessity that the Giant MUST operate according to an SOM system." 
And I did not say that social patterns of value "comprise individual 
identities."  However, individual values DO drive the social norm to a 
collective morality (with or without government, I should add.)

> There is a moral code that establishes the supremacy of social order over 
> biological life (your individual identities) these are the 'conventional 
> morals' and then there were moral codes over the social order i.e. the 
> intellectual order over the social order.  Nowhere is an individual to be 
> found within any of the social or intellectual patterns.
> Individual bodies are found at the organic level.

Again, Andre, I'm not talking about individual "bodies", for heaven sakes!
If you folks are bound to subject-object duality, at least keep the 'M' out 
of it.  There is no duality implicit in metaphysics.  Subjects and objects 
are the reified products of experienced value, as is the whole of existence.

> Don't get me wrong Hamilton!  I like your mention of Schroedinger's 
> insight but the way you go about integrating this insight leaves much to 
> be desired.

The author's name is Gerald Schroeder.

Ham, previously:
> 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.

Andre:
> SOM to the core. The manifestation of 'otherness' is negated by the source 
> itself Hamilton!!  There are no persons, there are no individuals, there 
> is no self!  Read something (at least) of what is attributed to Gautama 
> Buddha's sayings and insights.  He made them 2600 years ago!
>
> I gather that you have not properly understood Schroedinger nor your
> own life lessons. Whilst this scientist points to the unity, you 
> immediately transform this into negation by individuation and 
> differentiation and interposing a relational relationship not only between 
> the individual (which creates a differentation) but also between the 
> 'unity' and the 'individual'.

The only "source" Dr. Schroeder identifies is God.  As a scientist, his 
conclusions follow from the evidence, which is that the laws of nature are 
governed by a creative intelligence that transcends physical reality.
"Wisdom, information, an idea, is the link between the metaphysical creating 
Force and the physical creation."  That Wisdom is his "hidden face of God."

> It's time to realize that the MoQ seeks to include rather than exclude... 
> . To use other expressions, pointing to the same thing, there is no 
> individuation at the social level nor at the individual level.  The MoQ 
> seeks to combine, integrate, and harmonize that which is  patterned 
> (DQ/sq) and it is wonderfully successful.

Well, then, I'm happy for you that the MoQ is so successful.  It makes me 
wonder why so many words are expended to make that case.

> I hope you know why the MoQ does not adhere to 'absolute sources'?

No I don't, Andre.  Tell me why Mr. Pirsig does not subscribe to an absolute 
source?  It would seem to be fundamental to a metaphysical thesis.

--Ham