On 21 Oct 2007 at 16:39, David M wrote:
> DM: This goes too far....
No, it goes exactly to the point where the MOQ shows its
enormous explanatory power. Unless it's brought this far it's
drawn into the philospologist black hole and left as lame and
tame as the rest.
> Instead of showing how (with the advance of knowledge and the extension
> of experience and technology, etc) we in the west moved towards
> secularism (and SOM as well) -it seems to suggest that the idea of SOM
> appeared fully formed with the Greeks and lead to western culture.
> Intellectual history is more complex.
Well, if "knowledge" moved existence towards SOM or if the new
skeptical (S/O) attitude moved it is towards knowledge (AKA
"science") is not very important, but I stick to ZAMM where Pirsig
shows how the early philosophers' search for eternal principle
(beyond the mythological [social value] explanation of mankind)
paved the way for SOM (intellectual) explanation, and that this is
"our modern scientific understanding of relity".
(page 374 in ZAMM):
Plato was giving it. He said that the horse is not mere
Appearance. The Appearances cling to something which
is independent of them and which, like Ideas, is
unchanging. The ``something'' that Appearances cling to
he named ``substance.'' And at that moment, and not until
that moment, our modern scientific understanding of
reality was born.
The distance/complexity from the Greek Physics to Relativity and
Quantum theories is amazing, yet one of degree, while the one
from mythology (social level) to Aristotle (intellect) is essential.
I had said:
> > This is your comment to Joe's musings but I can't help myself.
> > "Blindness towards dynamic experience". The static levels are static for
> > the reason of "being blind to the dynamic" and intellect (SOM) is as
> > blind as the rest. It's only from MOQ's meta-level that existence's
> > dynamic/static aspect became manifest.
> DM: This is all just wrong, because Pirsig is not so unique, Darwin
> and Freud and Marx for example all help us to see how there is more
> change and less order in the world than we once thought. Don Cupitt's
> tells this story in his Sea of Faith book in 1982.
If we are at a site to discuss Pirsig's MOQ it must be for the
reason that he is regarded unique, not to flaunt our own
favourites. And unique he truly is, the Dynamic/Static divide of
existence is nowhere to be found in the history of philosophy. But
this you seem to see so why the disagreement?
BTW I asked for examples of intellectual patterns you deem non-
S/O. Have you forgotten or have I missed it?.
Bo
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
