[MD] 42

[Dan Glover]

John,

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:02 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>  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 recall attending a blueprint reading class way back when I was still
working on discovering my calling. It seemed intellectually demanding
at the time but then again I was still wet behind the ears. Still, it
was taught by a professor who took it quite seriously.

I have no idea what a lion 'thinks' when it snags a zebra. I somehow
doubt it plans out the attack like an architect plans a building. But
maybe.

>
>  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.

Dan:
If I thought it was a waste of time, I wouldn't do it. Until we get
the basics down, there is no sense in moving on.

>[John]
> 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?

Dan:
Do you ever ask others in your personal life if they've read ZMM? I
do. No one has ever said yes. Not one person. I've given away dozens
of copies. When I ask about it, I'm told the book is too 'out there'
or that it wasn't what they thought it would be so they stopped
reading it.

More to your point, have you considered your own bias towards the
subject/object metaphysics and how it might be blinding you to the
nuances of the MOQ? I'm not worried about getting the MOQ accepted by
society. I consider that a fool's mission, but not for the reason you
give.

It isn't about convincing people that there is something better. No
one cares. They already know all about that. Rather, the values
espoused by the MOQ seemed aimed at those who are open to the
possibility that their conception of the world might be lacking some
fundamental insight.

>[John]
> 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?

Dan:
Look at it this way: we are submerged in culture. It's like looking in
the mirror every day. Nothing changes. But when we meet an old friend
we haven't seen for decades, my god! They look so old! Guess what? We
look old to them too. Yet because we see that same image every day,
nothing changes.

>[John]
> 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.

Dan:
This is the same guy who read a fiction novel and declared global
warming is a farce. Come on. Platt farts dust. Talk about nothing ever
changing...

Be that as it may, subject/object metaphysics had nothing to do with
the decimation of the Indians. Gunpowder, bullets, disease, and
alcohol all played a role. Subject/object metaphysics is a collection
of intellectual quality patterns that describes the world. Politics is
a collection of social quality patterns that guides a culture.

>
>
> 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.

Dan:
So obviously I've misinterpreted this:

> Um.. yes.  I've heard that story.  I'm well acquainted with Pirsig's works
> and have been active in discussing them for a long time.  I realize I
> differ in my opinions than some on this list and I realize that's a painful
> thing to some people, but I'm off the opinion that I'm here to do more than
> merely learn Pirsig's MoQ. (which I learned when I read it, btw)

Dan comments:
You are here to do more than merely learn the MOQ because you've
already learned it. Some of us lesser mortals here find that painful.
I assumed that was a dig at me and perhaps David Buchanan but who
knows. Anyway, if I misread your intention, I apologize.

>
>
> 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.

Dan:
Nothing I say is true in that it is immutable. If you read what I
wrote, you'll see I said "this discussion" by which I had hoped to say
we might be having a more fruitful one, a discussion based upon a
mutual understanding of the basics of the MOQ.

>
>
>
>> >[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.

Dan:
I carefully clothed my remarks with the qualifier "might be wrong"
because yes, Ham is a very intelligent fellow. But when it comes to
the MOQ, I am fairly certain that he is clueless. He just doesn't
care. On the other hand, David Buchanan has been at this as long as I
have. He has as good a grasp of the MOQ as anyone. He cares. So, who
would you rather have in agreement with you?

>
> 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.

Dan:
There is nothing mysterious about the MOQ. As I said, I am not a
particularly sharp guy. Granted, I've never done anything so grandiose
as to attempt to adopt it to my way of life. I always assumed the MOQ
was more of a barometer, a moral compass, if you will, than a set of
hard and fast rules for living.

>[John]
> 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.

[Dan]
I have all kinds of problems. Not only do I find it difficult to make
myself understood, but my reading comprehension is lacking. The first
step toward improvement, however, is to recognize the deficiency.

>
>
>
>
>
>> 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:
I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about a fictitious fellow
who may or may not exist. Believe me, I never consider anyone a loser,
least of all you. These days I work towards goals others might
consider inane and useless but so what. I write stories. Sometimes
people actually buy them. That doesn't matter either.

>
> 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.

Dan:
Social quality patterns are comprised of value: celebrity, fame,
fortune. The rules that arise as a result of those values oppose and
suppress lower level biological quality patterns like sex and violence
but they are not to be confused with individuals.

>
>[John]
> But even apart from the MOQ, I know what a social pattern is.

Dan:
It is my understanding that we are discussing the MOQ. Am I in the wrong place?

>
>>>
>> 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.

Dan:
I don't know that ambition has anything to do with it. I would say it
is more of a need to allow myself to be heard.

>[John]
> 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.

[Dan]
"... if one asks what is this "man" (which is not a body and not a
mind) one doesn't come up with anything. There isn't any "man"
independent of the patterns. Man is the patterns." [Lila]

The way I read this, the MOQ is saying man, the individual, isn't
independent of the patterns. The individual is the patterns. Rather
than thinking of the self as being obviated by the MOQ, it appears to
me that the meaning has been subtly shifted into one of value rather
than corporeal.

>[John]
> 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.

[Dan]
I am too, other than the crack about Platt farting dust, that is.

>[John]
> 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]
I think this is okay as long as it is understood the self is the patterns.

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

Dan:
The social level in the MOQ has nothing to do with groups of
individuals. It is the value that holds civilization together.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com