[MD] The Social aspect of SOM

[John Carl]

Hi Andre,



> 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.



John:  Really?  I didn't get that.  I don't get it's relevance either, to
my pointed question - Is SOM inextricably tied to modern society?    I
realize very well that SOM is the intellectual reification of the unspoken
assumptions of the social patterns that operate in educational and
governmental circles, but is it a necessary metaphyiscal outlook to the
very existence (in current form) of these patterned organizations?  The
known fact that social patterns are subjective seems an inane point in the
context of my actual question.  Whether or not anything is ultimately
subjective or not, seems a pretty inane point to make in the context of the
MoQ's insights onto the relativistic nature of "subjective".  So if you are
correct and this is dmb's and Dan's main point to me, I fail utterly to
grasp it's relevance.

Andre:


> 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.
>
>

John:  How does one examine social patterns then?  Just as a doctor has to
focus upon the systems and cells of a body when curing a person, we have to
look at the individuals when we "fix" a society and by fix I mean correct
analysis of the problem.

Andre:



> 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)
>
>
John:  No problem here.  The fact that the self is derived (from social,
intellectual, biological patterns) is not a problem for me.  The assertion
that the self does therefore not exist, is.

Andre:

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.
>
>
>
 Well most everybody does.   My current agenda is to get this one question
answered.  I appreciate your time and attention.

So to recapitulate:  your, David's and Dan's view (and Pirsig's in your
opinion) that the Giant - and social systems in general, work according to
no conscious plan or guidance and just sort of evolve?  Are the
evolutionary impulses mysterious or are they explicable?  Can they by
encapsulated by some label and can you (or Dan or David or Pirsig) then
answer my question as to their necessity?

But honestly it doesn't make sense to me.  My only experience of social
reality is in the actions and choices of individuals who have those social
rules ingrained.  It makes no sense to me to discuss society as independent
of individual choices.


John