[MD] 420

[John Carl]

dmb,

I may start out confusedly and thrash around at first but over time I see
the points of confusion more clearly and I can clarify my terms.  Thanks
for helping me do this and sorry for the inconvenience.  I think I've got
it now.

John


On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:13 AM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
>
J:  Society is ruled by laws and the laws evolved from authority being
objective about its subject.  In a muslim society the laws evolve from a
different set of metaphysical beliefs - that reality is the will of Allah
and man's duty is revealed to his prophet Mohammed.  Different cultural
assumptions and thus different



>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>