From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon Jun 28 2004 - 03:35:59 BST
Hi Dmb, Dan, all,
>Pirsig said:
>"The root of the 'racism' problem goes all the way back to square
>one, to the subject-object metaphysics wherein man is an object who
>possesses a set of properties called a culture. SOM lumpsbiological
>man and cultural man together as aspects of a single molecular unit.
>...By contrast the MOQ, also going back to square one, says that man
>is composed of static levels of patterns of evolution with a
>capability of response to DQ. It says that biological patterns are
>often grouped together, but to say that a cultural pattern is an
>integral part f a biological person is like saying the Lotus 1-2-3
>program is an integral part of an IBM computer. Not so."
dan:
Yes that seems about right. It seems to me when we talk of racism we
are talking about social patterns of value. When we talk of genetic
differences we're talking about biological patterns of value. The
problem with SOM is that these values are conflated. That's what I
read RMP saying in the quote you offer. That's what I've been saying
only not nearly as elegantly. Thank you for sharing the quote.
msh says:
I guess I would disagree with Dan here, who, in a recent post to me,
said "... I think the MOQ would say it [race] is also a biological
concept."
I see the Pirsig quote (thanks dmb) as evidence that cultural
patterns, like race, are not a part of biological patterns at all, no
more that software is part of a computer. That is, in the MOQ, race
doesn't exist at the biological level, AT ALL.
Here's the exchange between Dan and me:
dan:
"I'm not denying race is a social concept. I think it is. But I think
the MOQ would say it's also a biological concept."
msh:
Right. But very different concepts using the same word, always a
major source of confusion in discussion, and, in this case, providing
a chance for racists to claim scientific credibility for their views.
msh continues:
In my posts, where I'm talking about science, such as the reply
above, I'm stuck in SOM because that's what science is based on. My
SOMish point is that society's concept of race and science's concept
of race, to the extent that it is used, ARE NOT THE SAME. Society's
concept is born of divisiveness and exploitation; it is based solely
on appearance, and is of extremely low value.
Again, this is why most scientists, including physical and social
scientists, eschew the word "race." What I'm saying now is that we
at the cultural level should take the cue from science and stop using
a confusing, empty, and divisive word. As Ant said earlier, it's a
static latch who's days are numbered. Goodbye and good riddance.
Thanks,
msh
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 28 2004 - 04:44:58 BST