[MD] The Social aspect of SOM

[Andre]

John said to Dan:
I know what a social pattern is.

John to Ham:
What is tiresome to me, are those who conclude from the significance of 
valuation, that it completely negates it's creations - the individual 
and his society.

John to Dan:
I find Pirsig to be very clear and understandable and I don't have any 
trouble understanding him.

Andre:
Well John, if Dan or dmb cannot persuade you into realizing your error 
just remember what Pirsig says about the social level:

'Societies are subjective. No objective instrument can detect a society' 
(see Annot. 18)

This is pretty much what Dan and dmb have been telling you. This is one 
reason why Pirsig, writing the MoQ did not focus on any specific 
society. He 'subsumed' it in 'social patterns of value' and within this 
level of the MoQ hierarchy there are no bodies found anywhere. In other 
words, one should not see a society as consisting of individual human 
bodies/people.

Annotation 19 should make this clear:
'In /Lila, /societies are...patterns that emerge from and are 
superimposed upon organic bodies of people, but they are not 
combinations of these organic bodies of people'.

And, for good measure here is Annotation 29:
'The MoQ...denies any existence of a 'self' independent of inorganic, 
biological, social or intellectual patterns. There is no 'self' that 
contains these patterns. These patterns contain the self. This denial 
agrees with both religious mysticism and scientific knowledge...'
(Lila's Child p 64-5)

Combine these three and your notion that the Giant operates from a 
subject-object point of view just evaporates...dissolves. And I hope a 
lot more confused bits and pieces you are grappling with at the moment 
are cleared up as well.

And Ham will only confuse you more John. He has his own agenda.