[MD] 42

[John Carl]

 Dan,

John prev:
>


> > But it's interesting to consider that the over all plan for the human,
> > doesn't come from "on top"  It comes from it's DNA and like wise the
> city's
> > overall plans comes from the dreams and ideas of men.
>
> [Dan]
> Isn't 'plan' an intellectual term?
>
>
J:  No, not necessarily.  Most of my experience with plans is the
blueprints a contractor turns into a house.  There's nothing inherently
intellectual about that.  Nor when a lion has a plan in its head to snag a
zebra.  I'm sure the term can be used on many different levels.

 Dan:

> I wasn't trying to be condescending. Sorry you took it that way. If
> you are acquainted with Pirsig's work then I'm not sure what we're
> disagreeing about here other than your contention that SOM is in
> charge of the social level, which in turn is composed of individuals.
> In order to counter that argument it seemed necessary to go back to
> the beginning.
>
>
J:  I didn't want to come off all prickly, but at the same time I don't
want you to have to waste your time explaining the basics.

The main point of my question is whether or not modern society relies upon
a Subject/Object Metaphysics out of necessity.  If that is so, then we are
fools to try and get the MOQ accepted by society for it simply cannot do
that. Modern society HAS to see things ultimately, only in terms of
subjects and objects and resists virulenty - or to be more accurate, it's
immune systems kicks in against such a threatening view.  How else to
explain this long span of time since ZAMM was published, all to little to
no effect in public policy?

Honestly one of the biggest reasons I craved another book out of Pirsig and
was so eager to read Lila when it came out was an answer to the question:
why has nothing changed?

Platt inspired me by bringing up the fact that Pirsig said that the
American Indian Way is closer to Quality than we are, and look how well
they've done.  IF SOM is superior to the MOQ in the matter of power
politics, then it doesn't matter how much better the MOQ is, it's going to
fail regardless.  Right is made by might.


D:


> It is great that you have nothing left to learn. Myself, I'm learning
> all the time. I've been here a little while now but I am continually
> amazed at how much more information there is that I never considered.
>

J:  Amen!  I never said I have nothing to learn.  But I have learned the
basics.


D:


> Along the way I have discovered that if my knowledge is built upon
> faulty foundations of misunderstandings, then it is bound to fail in
> the end. Thus, when I see someone going off on a wrong tangent, I do
> my best to guide them in the right direction.
>
> This isn't done in a minute. I'm not an especially sharp guy. I have
> to work on these posts taking time out from other projects. It has
> always been a bit frustrating to be taken like: um, yes. As if what
> I'm saying is perfectly clear, when in fact if you realized what I'm
> getting at, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>
>
J:  Really?  Is that actually true?  Does a complete understanding of
PIrsig's metaphysics obviate all future dialog?
I'd be disappointed to find that out.



> >[John]
> > I'm here to fill it out and develop it further.  Usually a complete
> > metaphysics is about a tome of up to 1000 words in deeply technical
> > language - ZAMM and Lila were not that.   Beyond fleshing Pirsig's work
> out
> > completely, I want to understand how to integrate it to the world of
> > experience that I live in.  That's been an uphill slog, that last part
> so I
> > also want to dig in and understand why.
>
> [Dan]
> The first clue that you might be wrong is Ham's appearance and his
> proclamation that you've hit pay dirt. Ham has always had his own
> agenda and that is not to further the MOQ. The second clue is David
> Buchanan and his attempts at setting right your misconceptions.
>
>
J:  Acclimation by somebody you disagree with is not adequate proof that
I'm wrong.  I have issues with Ham's Essence also.  But I don't mind his
agreement with me.  And while I've done my best to ease the antagonism with
dmb, I can't control what goes on in his heart and I notice he has never
had a single good word for me in our whole history of dialogue so I'm not
expecting that to happen soon while remaining open to the possibility
anyway.

D:


> It has always been my opinion that until I understand the foundations
> of whatever project I'm attempting, I have no hope of improving upon
> it. I don't mean to be critical, but from what I've seen and despite
> your protestations, you do not understand the MOQ.
>
>
J:  Well, you might be right.  But it seems to me that if you are its a
terrible condemnation.  Not of me, but of the MOQ.  If something is so
mysterious, so impenetrable that a smart guy can spend over 25 years
enthusiastically studying and adopting it as a basis for his life - and
still not understand it, then that's a very confusing and confused
metaphysical system.

But I find Pirsig to be very clear and understandable and I don't have any
trouble understanding him.  I do have trouble making myself clear
sometimes.  Perhaps that is where the trouble lies.





> But while it might be easier on our egos to blame some outward force
> repressing us, the real repression is psychological and from within.  The
> city is a reflection of a psychological malaise in the human heart.  It's
> also the cause of it.  Nuthin is so simple as to boil down to one cause,
> there's always more relations to be found the deeper we dig.

Dan:
> I think that was pretty much what I said. Yes it is easy to stay poor,
> sit in front of the tele, and drink a twelve pack every night. It's
> hard to create something from nothing. I guess that's why most people
> never bother. And I think a lot of those at the bottom believe the
> ones at the top had it all handed to them, which in my experience is
> far from the truth.
>
>
J:  I agree.  Those at the top worked hard for their success.  But if a
person were to work at different goals than material wealth and social
acclaim - you can't really deem him a loser, just because he picks a
different life for himself.  I don't have a telly and I'm too poor to
afford beer.  :)  But I do have three amazing daughters (oldest is just
finishing her Master's in Education)  and a wife and son who all adore me,
a comfortable place to work and write and study and I'm happy.

Dan:

> No problem, John. I appreciate what you're saying. Perhaps part of the
> problem lies with the term 'individual.' Reading over what you wrote,
> I get the distinct impression that you are (still) viewing the social
> level as a collection of individuals. The social level in the MOQ
> doesn't center around groups of individuals. It centers around value.
>
>
J:  But as I said Dan, these values would be empty without individuals to
fill them up.

Here's a handy definition to start with:  Social patterning is the rules
and laws which bind individuals into larger entities.  Does that work with
your understanding of the MOQ's 3rd level?  I'd be glad to hear a
correction on this.
Even tho I am confident of my grasp of the MOQ, I'm always glad to hone and
refine.


But even apart from the MOQ, I know what a social pattern is.

>>
> John:  Yeah, I just realize I've been avoiding that one too.  Let's save
it
> for another day.


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

> > John:  So *not* personal then.  Gotcha.  But like the epithet "physical",
> > "personal" is an aspect of experience that has a certain value;  is it
> > not?   But a personal possession of the system that holds us together
> would
> > be a dreadful solipsism and one that holds us would be a dreadful
> > absolutism so I like to thinks that Lila and Quality possess each other -
> > in a kind of dance that is.
>
> Dan:
> Things get tricky when we begin to think in terms of self vs world. To
> ask the question: Is it personal or communal, presupposes an
> independent self separate and apart from the world of objects. The
> term 'communal' also presupposes objects shared by a group of
> individuals.
>
> I gave the short answer because the long answer goes on and on.
> Actually, I am still in the process of sorting that out. Someone asked
> me today what I would do if I had free year. A free year! I might
> consider that question and work up a suitable answer in the form of a
> novel, perhaps even a series of novels.
>
>
J:  Well you are more ambitious than me.  And I take that as a good thing.

One problem in interpretation that I find a lot is that people tend to
believe that the MOQ obviates the self.  This is a stance I've argued a lot
with both Mary and Marsha.  I don't think individuality is obviated by the
MOQ - it's enhanced and placed into a larger scheme of thought.
Individuality is hugely important - after all, it's through individuality
that DQ makes it's appearance in the world.  It certainly doesn't come by
committee.

I almost added "obviously", referring to this discussion group but then I
struck it cuz I thought it might come across as a bit snide and I'm trying
to avoid that.

But the individual self is real, it's not independently real as SOM
postulates, but it's dependently real. just like reality is dependent upon
the  self.
 mpting to make.

>
>
> Dan:
> Yes you're still viewing social patterns as groups of individuals. And
> I know you've read Lila and discussed this many times, but until
> you're able to make the shift from social as groups vs social as
> value, you'll continue to argue that competition is social. It makes
> sense seen from that vantage point. But that isn't the MOQ.
>
> Thank you,
>


Is it helpful for me to say that I see it mainly as the force that holds
groups together?  And not merely the group?  I definitely understand that a
mere conglomeration does not a society make - it's the laws and myths which
are commonly accepted that hold a group together.

Yours in dialogue,

John