[MD] 420

[John Carl]

dmb,

dmb says:
> You're mixing up the levels, as I already tried to explain a day or two
> ago...
>
> "Pirsig makes a case that intellectual values should be in charge of
> society BUT, he says, there is a flaw (genetic defect) in the form of
> rationality that has inherited this task. That is where the problem of SOM
> resides.



John:  I guess I'm still confused. Isn't this just asserting  that SOM is
in charge of society?  I readily agree that SOM is a problem, i.e. has a
genetic defect.  And this statement above claims that SOM has inherited
this task.  So that just makes my point - SOM is in charge of the Giant.
Now my question about this is whether this relationship between SOM and the
Giant might actually be a necessary relation.  That is, a different kind of
metaphysics would produce a different kind of society.

Pirsig said that the American Indian had a society that was closer to the
MoQ but the American Indian's society is far inferior in the power and
control over objects and subjects and thus is doomed to be a 2nd rate
society.  If SOM has all the power, then what can be done?

dmb:



> I think maybe you want to refer to SOM as the intellectual level values
> that rule society, but not as social values. You see the difference?



J:  Sure.  I thought I made this point where I said it'd be better to say
SOP than SOM.  But regardless, yes. Metaphysical patterns of the 4th level,
not the 3rd.

dmb:


> The culture is comprised of both social and intellectual values and the
> question in Lila is "which one is going to run the show?" So one of the
> biggest questions is how to expand rationality beyond SOM so that society
> has better leadership, so to speak. That's what the MOQ is, basically. A
> picture of that expanded rationality, one that can lead society without the
> problems of SOM,.."
>
>
> John:

Yes, but if that expanded rationality lacks strength, relative to the SOM
rules which amplify ego and power, then it's not going to work.  We need a
way of translating betterness (right) into power (might).  I don't see any
clear way to that.


dmb:


> AND, I would add, since Pirsig and others have already rejected SOM we can
> see that it's not necessary or inevitable.


John:  Sure, you could choose to live like an Indian.  But if you want real
power, then maybe it is necessary to live in a repressive society.  And
strive to be on the oppressive side rather than the oppressed.  Sure we can
ignore all that - it's called "being philosophical about things"  But does
this get anything done?   This is the crux of my conundrum.


John