[MD] 42

[John Carl]

Hi Dan,

 >>
> > J:  I  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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Dan:
>
> "The metaphysics of substance makes it difficult to see the Giant. It
> makes it customary to think of a city like New York as a "work of
> man," but what man invented it? What group of men invented it? Who sat
> around and thought up how it should all go together?
>
>
John:  I'd answer that last question "the founders". Certainly men make up
the building of a city in the same way my cells make up the formation of
my body.  Nobody pays much attention to my cells, but that does not mean
they are unimportant.  Without my cells I would not be and without the men
that build it, the city would not be.


Dan quoting lila:


> "If "man" invented societies and cities, why are all societies and
> cities so repressive of "man"?


John:  Isn't it true that huge organizations like cities and corporations
are repressive of some men (those on the bottom) and empowering of others
(those on top)?

Lila:


> Why would "man" want to invent
> internally contradictory standards and arbitrary social institutions
> for the purpose of giving himself a bad time? This "man" who goes
> around inventing societies to repress himself seems real as long as
> you deal with him in the abstract, but he evaporates as you get more
> specific." [Lila]
>
>


> Dan comments:
> If I am reading this correctly, it means that there are no "competing
> selves that make up the body of the Giant." When we begin to specify
> the nature of the 'Giant' we see it doesn't really exist from a
> substance point of view, only from a value-centric point of view.
>
>
John:  Ok, then it's competing values.  Because there's certainly a lot of
competition to be on top.


Dan:


> So, no, this 'Giant' doesn't operate from the subject-object point of
> view. It isn't comprised of people at all. In the MOQ these checks and
> balances you talk about are social quality patterns set in place long
> ago, not objects that are 'out there' floating around somewhere
> dictating what a subject does or doesn't do.
>
>
John:  Well I don't know if I can buy that.  For one thing, we say that SOM
is the big problem but if the Giant doesn't operate from the subject-object
point of view then there is no problem with the giant.  That seems a faulty
conclusion to me.    And what mechanism creates social quality patterns if
not individual selves?  I'm sorry but this is just very confusing to me.

Dan:


> I think this is important to understand in that 'the system' isn't
> some hard-wired entity--an object, if you will--that is solid and real
> and impervious to change.


John:  I certainly agree with that.  All over the world and throughout
history there are different systems.  If it was hard-wired it would all be
the same.

Dan:


> The system is real and yet non-physical.



John:  In fact it could be said that everything is.   Real and yet
non-physical that is.

 Dan:

The
> only thing that holds this system in place is our conception of it.
>
>
John:  I agree but wonder if you agree with me on the nature of this
"our".  Is it personal or communal to you?

Dan:

It is also important to note that our conception of the system is so
> pervasive that it may seem impossible to change. From that point of
> view, it is. But if we regard the four levels of the MOQ as competing
> with each other, even opposing each other, it becomes apparent that
> the intellectual level is in the process of freeing us from the
> 'Giant' even now.
>
>
I have a small problem with this word "competing" when applied between the
levels.  Isn't it true that values compete within levels but not so much
between?  Pirsig said the levels were largely discrete - that means they
don't have that much to do with one another.  It certainly obviates the
idea of any widespread competing going on.

Thanks for the thoughts Dan,

John