[MD] 42

[John Carl]

David,

I realize the big "M" indicates a metaphysics.  But a metaphysics that is
uniformly  accepted is what makes a society.  You could say that it's the
operating system (software) that the society (hardware) runs on.


On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:13 PM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> John said:
> SOM is a social pattern.
>
>
> Arlo replied:
> I've been avoiding this, and I think Dan gave a great reply already, but
> since you're saying this again let me say, "no". "SOM" is an intellectual
> pattern of values that holds subjects and/or objects and primary
> metaphysical entities.
>
> dmb says:
> Thanks, Arlo. I agree. SOM is the root cause of a defect in rationality.
> It refers to an ontological dualism and yes, as the name indicates so
> clearly, "subject-object metaphysics" is a philosophical term. It's
> associated with the modern Western scientific worldview but the roots of it
> can be traced all the way back to the first Greek philosophers, as Pirsig
> and others have shown. The notion that it's a social pattern is real
> head-scratcher, I think.
>
>
>

In order to keep the levels discrete, perhaps it'd be better to call what
I'm talking about SOP.  A Subject/Object Philosophy - to designate the
underlying assumptions of a social order.  Also designates a Standard
Operating Procedure and the intellectual problem comes in when that
procedure is reified metaphysically.

Would that be any better?

So the question remains, is this SOP inevitable?  Or would a value-centric
metaphysics dictate a different social order?  If so, what would that look
like and if not, what are we doing here?

John