Chris, Arlo, Moqtalk.
Chris spaketh so:
> Bodvar, Arlo - I'll try to simplify this and keep this discussion from
> running amok 8because I feel we might be able to make something
> constructive of it if everyone comes out of their boxes - so to speak =)
Don't worry, this discussion has been much more "amok" before,
but Pirsig's ideas are too important to shrink back from
confrontations.
> Now, does any one of you reject the notion of the intellectual level as
> emerging when the notion of Ideas came to be a separate thing from the
> surrounding world?
I will of course not reject it, but only add that IDEAS as separate -
not from the surrounding world, but from APPEARANCE was one
of SOM's (hereafter "intellect") many phases, namely Plato's. We
must understand how the 4th. level emerged and how many
forms it went through before it arrived at something recognizable
to our mind/matter variety. Even the subject/object distinction
was not part of the Greeks' vocabulary.
Read ZAMM, it's all laid out clear and convincingly, beginning
with the old thinker's search for eternal principles, meaning a
reality deeper than the ancient mythological (god-based)
explanation of reality (becoming the social level) over to
Socrates' "Opinion vs Truth" (this order to make the first
component the "subjective" one) and then Plato's "Appearance vs
Ideas" (to him ideas were "objective") and finally Aristotle's
"Appearance vs Substance" about which ZAMM says:
And at that moment, and not until that moment, our
modern scientific understanding of reality was born.
But as said it took long before the subject/object form appeared
and even longer before the mind/matter one (possibly with
Descartes). However intellect's quintessence is that of a
permanent reality beyond the Gods' caprices. This was intellects
break with the social level, then later came intellects "civil war",
namely the fight between the objective and the subjective when
the Sophists began their undermining of Socrates' Truth (his
"permanent reality") by claiming that "man was the measure of all
things".
Pirsig's identifying with the Sophist and claiming that the old
Aretê (in this interpretation the Social level) is the reason for his
disastrous "subjective" slant and also that the MOQ seemingly
joins the social level against intellect. All this the SOL
interpretation sets right. But we seemingly has our own Socrates-
Plato vs Sophist struggle going on, who in which role I'm not sure
of.
> I mean, this is clearly in conflict with the social level at it's base,
> although it can co-exist with the social level of course, and influence
> it.
Yes, definitely, and don't let yourself be turned off by all my
intricacies, but I have been thinking about this for more than a
decade and have gone through all nuances and the SOL stands
tall.
> So, If Arlo, Bodvar, and perhaps Magnus - and anyone else for that matter
> could write down (as short as possible for the sake of overview) we could
> in a proper and constructive way way our arguments against one another.
The short part is not my strong side. ;-)
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/
