[MD] 420

[david]

dmb said to John:
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.  .. 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?



John replied:
I guess I'm still confused. Isn't this just asserting  that SOM is in charge of society? ...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.

dmb says:
Yes, you're confused. You're still mixing up the operative terms and doing so to such a degree that you think I'm making your point. Again, SOM is intellectual and the giant is social. The giant does not and cannot operate according to ANY intellectual pattern. That way of putting it doesn't make sense. 

We can't equate the Giant with society or culture in general because society or culture in general is comprised of BOTH social and intellectual values. Let me say that again because it's central to the confusion; society is comprised of BOTH social and intellectual values.The Giant is JUST the social values in society, which may or may not dominate that society. Pirsig thinks intellectual values should guide society, not the Giant. Then the question is about what kind of intellectual values (SOM or MOQ) are going to be in charge. Either way, the Giant will continue to be the social level values. The Giant will be tamed, so to speak, but it will still operate according to its own level of values. You know, fame and fortune, controlling the biological values for it own benefit, etc.

Your questions always confuse these various elements and so those questions are meaningless. There is no good way to answer a meaningless question. All one can do is criticize the question so that's what I'm doing. This question, for example, makes no sense: "If SOM has all the power, then what can be done?" In what sense does SOM have "power"? 


John said to dmb:
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 says:
Here is another example of a question that cannot be answered but can be criticized. Again, I think the question confuses the levels. It's hard to see how any kind of rationality could have strength or power or might but there's another glaring problem too. Your question contains an assertion that confuses the levels: You says SOM rules amplify ego and power. But ego and power are social level values, like fame and fortune, celebrity and wealth, all the social manners and conspicuous consumption of the Victorians. Ego and power are the rules of the Giant, not SOM. You keep treating them as if they were married (and keep asking if they inextricably linked) but they're actually quite blind to each other. So the whole line of questions is predicated on one false premise after another. I can't untangle them all but this link between SOM and ego/power screamed at me.

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


John replied:
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.

dmb says:
I don't see how your response has anything to do with the point you're supposedly addressing, probably because I have no idea what you're saying.