[MD] SOM is what?

[John Carl]

David:

Hmmm. I think this exchange reveals two sad facts: 1) Your assertions are a
> series of moving targets and 2) Despite the explanations in Pirsig's book
> and in the article I posted for your benefit, you apparently do not
> understand what "SOM" means.
>
>
John:  Admittedly I wasn't so much asserting as asking.  It was a question
that occurred to me and I apologize if I've worded it awkwardly.  Just as a
group of people are deemed "theists" because they chose to believe in God,
it makes sense to me to label somists, those who believe in SOM.  It's a
term I've heard bandied about before and it seems intriguing to look at
that particular demographic in light of the MoQ and alternative ways of
seeing.

As to what SOM means, I posted an attempt at that definition.  I got
feedback from Ian that didn't find anything wrong with it.




> The reason you give as to why the giant MUST work according to SOM rules,
> for example, is terribly confused and quite irrelevant to the problem of
> SOM. "SOM is uniquely suited to social patterns," you say, because "a
> well-ordered society ...wants to protect people's objects and keep it's
> subjects in line". Here you have construed subjects and objects as citizens
> and their property. That's not just not what anyone means by subject-object
> dualism. That's just totally wrong and super goofy. And the slippery nature
> of your assertions makes it even worse. C'mon, John. This kind of stuff
> makes it impossible to have a conversation.
>
>
No, the thing that makes it impossible to have a conversation is to shut up
and go away.  Right now we are having a conversation.  I see there is a
huge disconnect between my understanding and yours and I'll do my best to
rectify the problems.

I admit the idea that society and SOM is a new topic here but I think it
intriguing that SOM is in many ways, simply the pragmatic reification of
the simple way people relate to other people and objects.  I could do a
comprehensive dissertation on this connection but I'd rather make a
slippery assertion and see what y'all think of my idea.  Please don't get
upset at me over such a good-hearted attempt at making conversation.



> 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. 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?
> 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, problems like value-free science, relativism, nihilism,
> alienation, etc., etc..
>
>
I'm saying  that if intellect runs the show and there's something wrong
with intellect, then the show is gonna suck.  The currently dominant
paradigm for intellect is SOM and while there is a reaction against that
intellect, it still rules.  Maybe it rules because nothing is stronger?
Maybe it rules because it's uniquely suited to domination and repression of
all other intellectual paradigms.   If so, then our educational reforms
ought to be firmly rooted in SOM.  We certainly wouldn't want to bequeath
to our children a persistent second class system.  See?

This all stems from our discussion on education.

Thanks for your time,

John