Donald T Palmgren (lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)
Thu, 7 May 1998 09:24:52 +0100
Lots of good mail today! Thanks to you all!
I'll just shoot through,
Maggie and Lawrie,
I think what Bo was refering to was Chaos in the mathematical
sense, not chaos as in completly random, unpredictable, anything can
happen. Chaos theory, so far as I grasp it, says that many syastems apear
random on the microscale, but when you pull back to the macroscale you can
see an over-riding pattern. Weather patterns are the prime example -- you
can only see the pattern in the big picture. Actualy computer "random
numbner generators" work on this principal. Man has never built any
program truly random. computers spit out numbers in a calculated pattern,
but to see the pattern you'd have to look at millions (or billions) of
numbers in the sequence. This kind of "chaos" has nothing to do w/ Greek
thought -- they simply didn't have the math.
I wouldn't say DQ=chaos either, but for other reasons. For me (put
in one sentence) DQ=potentiality and SQ=actuality. (Take that one sentence
only for what it's worth.)
Second, Maggie,
As I mentioned, any noun-concept divides the world into 2 things:
those it correctly applies to and those it doesn't. This however is a
"nominal" (linguistic) distinction. "Dualism" has a special meaning in
metaphysics.
Dualism of soruce: The universe (and everything in it) was/is
created by two sources/originators. Example: Zoroastrianism, which holds
that the universe is a battle ground between light and dark (good and
evil) and is actualy created by this struggle between these two etrnal
opposing forces.
Dualism of kind: The universe is made out of two types/kinds of
being, and everything is one or the other or some combination of the two.
Example: Cartesan dualism, which holds that the universe is comprised of a
combination of spacialy extended stuff (Body) and thinking substance
(Mind). This is the clearest example of a metaphysical theory built on
the subject-object distinction.
These are set against monism of source and monism of kind. Note
that you can have combinations like monism of source/dualism of kind
(Cartisanism) and so on.
Magnus,
Good stuff here. I love the "chasing the bar
of soap" analogy. :D
I agree that while most philosphers subordinate Good to true
(Plato did it unconsciously) and it helps alot to turn that on its head
(as I imagine most of us have figured out, or are starting to hit on) I'm
not sure I buy that as SOM.
That position is what I call logocentracism (actualy the word is
from Derida). It's the asumption that there are true facts which are true
independent of us. "This is true regardless of what you or I think or say
(or don't think or say) about it. It just is!" "The truth is *out there*"
as you said (I love that). In this view truth depends on the
corespondence between what I think and "the facts of the world" (this
Hegel called *Rasonnieren*)and whether I comunicate this insight or not
makes no difference.
Contrast that w/ the view that truth exist in the
dialogue/discourse. (*begriefende Denken* in Hegelian jargan)Which says:
F=ma is scientifically true. Something can't be scientifically true w/o
science. And you can't have science w/o scientist. (You can't have a
winner of a chess match w/o a chess game and you can't have a chess game
w/o chess players.) F=ma is scientifically true, but in what way is
science true? Answer: it's MORALY true (or moraly correct/good). Science
is how our society creates the "correct picture of the world." That's how
science exists -- as a social enterprise, a social pattern.
This is a major theam in ZMM, but as Bo pointed out to us, "SOM"
isn't mentioned in ZMM.
Does SOM=logocentracism (Rasonnieren)? I'm skeptical. (But I
could be wrong.)
And last, but not least,
On Wed, 6 May 1998, Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
> Donny,
> Thanks for bringing the person/identity theme into the "Explain
> the SOM" thread.
You're welcome. It's certainly an obvious direction to take
"Explain SOM" -- What is this "Subject?"
> > Persons
> > arise in the self-conscious opposition of the natural facts -- the
> > physical body w/ its creature urges. We get to be persons by
> > training/controlling our bodies -- synching the natural rhythms to the
> > social rythms.
>
> Q-society is very basic and may go for a wolf-pack as well as
> a human community, in both cases it is Biology being transgressed
> by Society; the individual giving up biological value for the
> common good, but personhood is not necessarily involved. THAT IS
> INTELLECT which in turn transgresses Society and introduces
> individual as the ultimate value. But Intellect grows out of
> societies and modifies social conduct heavily (in the same way
> as Society modifies Life).
Sorry, I don't buy it.
#1 I think this is clearly not what Pirsig had in mind. I
intentionaly have not picked up LILA since joining the LS (to keep the tea
cup empty so I can fill it w/ our new thoughts), but as I remember P is
actually pretty clear about the social patterns. He talks about "the
city" and "The Giant" -- he exemplifies social patterns w/ the
Victorian-Edwardian world. And he characterized the 20th century as
intelectual patterns comming into dominance.
But most of all, there's one of my favorite
passages in LILA, the one where he says two people on a street in New York
asking, "Will there ever be a form of life more evolved that our own?" was
akin to two red blood cells inside a human body asking the same question.
Pirsig (IMHO) seems quite clear that by society he means
civilization/society/culture(it's included). What he means by Intelectual
patterns is somewhat more vague, but I don't think it's culture.
#2 Who cares what Pirsig thought anyway!? I don't buy your
idea on its own merits either. Look wolves don't impose social rythyms
over biological ones, they act on those biological instincts. They are
"social animals" but it's not the same as saying the have an actual
society (it's more of a manner of speaking).
An even better example is insects. Insects divide up into highly
organized structures of workers and drones and guards and scouts and
wariors and acountants... (just kidding) but these arn't social patterns
imposed over biological ones -- they arn't social facts contraposed
against natural facts; they ARE natural facts. An ant's role in it's
collony is determaned geneticaly at birth. It isn't a "role" in the same
sense that customer and server are roles, or teacher-student, or postman
or police officer... OUR social roles are postures we strike, take up and
then drop as appropreate. Like the objective scientist; that's a role that
someone can take -- an identity he can assume -- so that we can tell what
he's doing. Ervig Goffman describes personhood as "a dance of
identities." That's what we are -- but that's not what wolves or ants or
bees do.
Pecking order, pack structure and hive structure are all elements
(all-be-it advanced ones) of natural, organic laws. When two dogs fight
for dominance it's clearly (isn't it?) a case of law of the jungle and not
"law" --as in, "what's normaly ment by the word," as Pirsig says.
Social patterns include judiciary law, styles of dress, language
and dialect, fads, government ledgislative bodies, the medical industry,
churches, schools...
In short: INSTITUTIONS! (and rituals)
Social patterns are designed to insure that "The Giant" outlives
us, and doesn't change, even when it's particuler individual constituents
do. Society is what stays the same (or trys to) as generations change.
It's a LIVING THING! A way of life. And here we are, schooled in our way
of life, prepared to fight and die in defence of our way of life.
Wolves don't have a "way of life" in this sense. They don't have a
Giant. Wolves fight for the ability to pass on their geans. That's what
they're programed to do. But we go well beyond passing on our genes; we
are programed to pass on our society. Fighting to pass on genes=jungle
law; this is Darwinian stuff. Fighting to preserve/pass on your way of
life -- your ideals your (social) values=social law.
> What you have written Donny is fully compatible with (my) MOQ if you
> accept the social-society/culture-society shift? Otherwise the social
> term becomes too foggy. Remember Kevins struggles how "society" could
> value various political isms: basically social value is one great ISM
> in itself: us versus them. Only by Intellect is I versus them
> introduced
First, I think my/Pirsig's structure is clearer. W/ yours I
wonder: Why have a whole level for wolf packs and bee hives? This just
seems to be part of the organic level, why dice it up even more? It's
like: you could draw a level distinction between molicules/atoms and
sub-nuclear particals/quanta, but why? I mean, by "inorganic patterns"
Pirsig just means the articals of physics, chemostry and partical physics.
Over against that he places the articals of biology and zoology, and over
against that: the articals of sociology, psychology, socialist/political
theory, and the like. Beyond that is... well, HE'S unclear, but I say
philosophy -- the study of proof/questions -- not knowledge but the study
of 'What is knowing? What counts as knowing?'
Sorry, I don't remember Kevin's "struggles" but from what I
derive, you're saying, "Society can't hold more than one position/rhythym
at a time." (?)
Why not? I mean, it clearly does?
In nature, wolves compete against sheep and each other for the
right to pass on their genes. Why can't social patterns compete for
survivel?
> Sincerely
>
> Bo
Sorry this is so bloody long. like I said, their was a lot of good
mail today (and I didn't even get to Horse).
TTFN (ta-ta for now)
Donny
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:14 CEST