[MD] 42

[Dan Glover]

John,

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:28 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:
As Phaedrus says, it's difficult to see that the "city" isn't the
substance of actual buildings and bricks. Rather, what binds the city
together--what creates it--are the social quality patterns that emerge
from the biological patterns of people.

Think of it this way: the cells that make up the structure of your
body have little to do with your personality, or the social and
intellectual quality patterns that comprise your life. Remember when
Phaedrus talks about the University and how it isn't composed of
bricks and mortar? Same analogy here.

>
>
> 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)?

Dan:
As one of the former ones at the top, I was as repressed as any of my
employees, perhaps more so. I had to keep feeding the tiger. I had to
keep juggling those balls. I knew if I dropped even one, a cascade
would ensue and wreck everything I thought was important.

>
> 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:
There is competition everywhere.

>
>
> 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:
According to the MOQ, social patterns arise from biological patterns
but have little to do with them. In fact, they actively oppose them.
The driving forces of the social level are celebrity values of fame
and wealth. From the janitor who mops the floors to the CEO high in
his tower, everyone is seeking to have their voices heard.

Praise costs nothing yet it empowers in ways that money could never
do. Praise is a form of celebrity value, like the applause the actor
hears after nailing a particularly difficult line. A raise in pay or a
bonus is wonderful but if it doesn't come with a pat on the back, it
means less. In fact, it means nothing.

Notice that none of this has anything to do with subject/object metaphysics.

>
> 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:
In the MOQ, inorganic and biological patterns are physical. We can
pick them up, examine them, put them under microscopes. Social and
intellectual patterns are non-physical. If you were to take two people
and examine them carefully, you couldn't tell which one was the CEO
and which one was the janitor.

>
>  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:
Lila doesn't possess quality. Quality possesses Lila.

>
> 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.
>>
>>[John]
> 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.

Dan:
They are discrete and yet continuous. The whole premise of Lila is to
show how rigid social values (Rigel) hold the culture in place while
the biological degenerates (Lila) tear it apart. Then along comes the
intellectual folk (Phaedrus) who kick everything down the riverbank
and upend the whole shebang.

The Victorian values of the late 19th and and early 20th centuries
were usurped by the intellectual evolution of society. The beatniks
and the hippies furthered the cause only to misunderstand the scope of
their movements. Even today we see, particularly here in the US, the
fight between social values (creationism) and intellectual values
(evolution.)

I hope this helps,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com