[MD] The Social aspect of SOM

[Hamilton Priday]

John --

I'm trying to understand your dilemma, if that's the proper term, concerning 
the relation of the individual to his society.  I guess I've never looked at 
society (or government, for that matter) as a benefactor or 'Giant' in the 
Pirsigian sense.

You say that the social system depends on individuals, which is a de facto 
truth.  It is also true that the individual, unless he or she is a recluse 
or adventurer, is dependent on some "concrete" things -- food, water, power, 
etc. -- that the social system provides.  Although few people are totally 
self-sufficient in today's society, I don't see that fulfilling individual 
needs through goods and/or services purchased by the rewards of their labor 
makes the Individual and society a "co-dependent" entity per se.

Nor do I believe, as Andre apparently  does, that "There is a moral code 
that establishes the supremacy of social order over biological life ... 
[and] moral codes over the social order."  In other words, I don't believe 
in a world that is moral by divine or executive fiat.  For, if that were so, 
there would be no quest for moral virtue, no human need to discriminate 
between the good, the bad, and the indifferent.

If this is Pirsig's vision of the universe, he is sorely mistaken.  It is my 
belief that we exist in an amoral universe, and that man is granted value 
sensibility for the specific purpose of realizing and defining Essential 
Value in relational terms.

Is this where we have an 'SOM' problem, John?

Essentially speaking,
Ham