[MD] The Social aspect of SOM

[John Carl]

Hi Ham,



> 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:  If that is true, that society depends upon individuals then it's
equally true that individuals depend upon society.  It seems to me that the
social order itself is a co-dependency where neither society nor individual
is fundamental.



>
> 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.


John:  agree. I was trying to use the term "negate" to indicate they don't
exist except as in relation.
Sometimes I get caught up in too-fancy rhetoric.

 Ham:

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.)
>
>
John:  Yup.  Got it.



> 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.


John:  ??? several?  Royce is such an esoteric taste I'd be surprised (and
delighted) to find any others.  Perhaps you're misremembering my own
contributions from the past.

Ham:


>  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
>

Thanks Ham,  am in the midst of doing so.

John