[MD] The Social aspect of SOM

[John Carl]

Ham,

 Hi Ham,
>>
>> Pardon the slow response; it got busy around here.
>>
>
> So I gather.
>

J:

Yes in fact I'm getting quite backed up.  LS was much quieter.

H:

>
> I am somewhat perplexed by your statement that " The individual cannot
> 'see' (conceive) himself except in the context of a society."  Do you
> really believe that?  Does an individual isolated on the proverbial desert
> island not conceive himself?  Does he not perceive that he is a self
> existing in an otherness of land, ocean, and trees?  (I suggest you rethink
> that concept.)
>
>
J:  If the individual had no past memory of human society, then he would
not see himself as human.  Since he is a human then he would not see his
true self.  He would undoubtedly have  the brain and attitude of a clever
animal but even animals, or at least mammals, are socialized by their
mothers to an extent.  I doubt a human who was completely bereft of social
patterns would even be able to think of anything, much less conceive
himself.

Furthermore the conception of ourselves is creatively influenced by our
relations with others.  If you were surrounded by a bunch of serious-minded
puritans you'd been seen (and come to see yourself) as a hare brained
flibbertygibbet.  If you were surrounded by a bunch of dope smoking
hippies, a staid, stuck-in-the-mud square.  Our conception of ourself is
formed out of contrasts and comparisons with others.  With no others, no
conception.  That's the way I see it.

Ham:

>
>  'Being' itself is a mental construct of experiential sense data,
>>> which means that without sensibility there is no Being -- neither
>>> objective (societal) nor subjective (personal).
>>>
>>
> John:
>
>> Ok, I get you there - the fallacy of Descartes - he postulates thinking
>> without sensing, which is illogical and proves being then through
>> thinking.  An absurdity!
>>
>
> As a metaphysical "proof". yes.  But Descartes was trying to establish
> what he knew beyond all uncertainty.  It turned out to be that HE alone was
> the subject of all that he experienced.   And that conclusion paved the way
> for Donald Hoffman and others to posit a "conscious reality".
>
>
J:  Ok, I see what you mean.  I hadn't thought of it that way.

Ham:


> But inasmuch as consciousness is vulnerable in several respects, I have
> opted to regard consciousness as an organic mode of Sensibility -- an
> attribute of the Absolute Source which cannot be denied.  For without
> sensibility EVERYTHING is in doubt.  And that includes the "proofs" of
> science which are all based on sensibly derived evidence.
>
> Previously:
>
>> As you see, that leaves Sensibility as the metaphysical foundation of
>>> Beingness.  ... And there you have the essentialist paradigm of reality.
>>>
>>
> John:
>
>> I come to the conclusion that while Sensibility is the foundation for
>> Beingness, Beingness is also the foundation for Sensibility - they are
>> codependent.  This was just mentioned in response to Craig - Bob Lanza's
>> theory of the Biocentric Universe makes the most sense to me so far,
>> cosmologically speaking.
>>
>
> Interesting that you should mention Lanza, since I've just replaced his
> "New Theory of the Universe" to make room for Schroeder's "Science Reveals
> the Ultimate Truth" on my archives list.  But Lanza does support my
> ontology, as you will readily see from this paragraph:
>
> "Without perception, there is in effect no reality.  Nothing has existence
> unless you, I, or some living creature perceives it, and how it is
> perceived further influences that reality.  Even time itself is not
> exempted from biocentrism.  Our sense of the forward motion of time is
> really the result of an infinite number of decisions that only seem to be a
> smooth continuous path. At each moment we are at the edge of a paradox
> known as The Arrow, first described 2,500 years ago by the philosopher Zeno
> of Elea.  Starting logically with the premise that nothing can be in two
> places at once, he reasoned that an arrow is only in one place during any
> given instance of its flight.  But if it is in only one place, it must be
> at rest. The arrow must then be at rest at every moment of its flight.
>  Logically, motion is impossible.  But is motion impossible?  Or rather, is
> this analogy proof that the forward motion of time is not a feature of the
> external world but a projection of something within us?  Time is not an
> absolute reality but an aspect of our consciousness."   -- Robert Lanza:
>  'A New Theory of the Universe'
>
> Ham, previously:
>
>  What you don't understand is that realizing relational values does not
>>> negate Essential Value; it negates the otherness of the being perceived.
>>>  >> This is how we enter it into consciousness as a thing, a person, an
>>> object, a system, a society, or whatever.
>>>
>>
> John:
>
>> Ok, I think I get you there.  It negates the *absolute* otherness.
>>
>> There is a relative otherness that is useful and creative, don't you
>> think?
>>
>
> Yes, sensibility negates the being of the otherness experienced, allowing
> us to conceptualize an object by its relative value to us.  In the process
> of experiencing we acquire the finite value of the thing, system or person
> so conceptualized.  In that sense, WE are the "creators" of our own reality.
>
>
J:  It's interesting that you say this in the plural form "WE".  For we
constantly check and compare and build our conceptualized sensory input
with others.   My conclusion then is that reality is not an individual
construct but a social one.


Ham:

John, there is no need to struggle.  Morality is what we ourselves make of
experience, emotionally and rationally.  If it is useful, satisfying,
logical, and edifying, we call it "good".   If it is harmful, distasteful,
destructive, or impractical, we call it "bad".   Anything else is at some
intermediate place on your value scale.  There's your morality in a
nutshell.

J:  If I call it moral to steal my neighbor's car, the state will soon
rectify my stance.  Thus again, morality is a social realization rather
than a personal one.



>
> John:
>
>> Hmmm.  That makes sense.  Does your Absolute Essence equate to Total
>> Experience?  If not, why?  And if so, it seems you and the MoQ ought to
>> be reconcilable.
>>
>
>
Ham:


> When you say "total experience", you are referring to the collective
> experience of all (living) individuals.  But experience, per se, has
> nothing to do with Absolute Essence, because experience is finite and
> differentiated, whereas absolute Sensibility is not.
>
> John, I once thought the MoQ and Essentialism could be reconciled.  Alas,
> Pirsig's philosophy has lately been treated as a doctrine that can only be
> "understood" in the words of its author.  This leaves little opportunity
> for "unorthodox" ideas such as mine to add the insight needed.  I depend on
> the intellect of persons such as yourself to make the transition, if it is
> at all possible.
>
>
J:  I see full well what you mean about the MoQ's community of
interpretation.  It is sad indeed to contemplate the finest tool ever given
for escaping the trap of dogmatic orthodoxy turned into another dogmatic
orthodoxy.

Thanks for the thought-provoking insights Ham,

John