Joe, Ron, DMB
I'm lurking but when the SOL is mentioned ... ;-)
Joe had written:
> Analogues for DQ/SQ. IMO the meaning for undefined DQ is an analogy
> to an order in Existence. Aristotle wanted to divide existence into
> real existence (concrete) and intentional existence which the mind
> creates to hold an (abstracted) essence. Pragmatism questions
> Aristotle¹s metaphysics SOM, because relationships between SQ is
> experiential rather than a product of intentional existence in a
> mind. Bo¹s SOL usefully describes Aristotle¹s division as a level
> of evolution, the intellectual level.
Right, Aristotle was a milestone in the evolution (of SOM in ZAMM, of
the 4th. level in LILA). Aristotle did not use the abstract/concrete
dichotomy but his form/substance can be likened to our modern
SOM, "form" the subjective, fleeting part with substance the objective,
lasting one. (this is what Pirsig means by "...our modern scientific
attitude" was born with Aristotle.
Ron replied:
> I thought that was RMP who posited this in reference to the
> origins of western cultural intellectual patterns. Bo maintains that
> making the abstract/concrete grammatical distinction of axiom is THE
> intellectual level of the human enterprise.
There is no Western social level or Western biological level so why
an regional intellectual level? The SOL harmonizes ZMM and LILA. In
the latter book RMP says nothing about how ZMM is to be seen in a
MOQ light, but it's obvious that the SOM/Aretê transition corresponds
to the intellectual/social one. The Sophists didn't defend DQ
(humankind only knows the static side of existence) they were the
(first) subjectivists of the newfangled intellectual level ("man the
measure ...")
> It was a Greek convention spread with the expansion of Alexander the
> greats empire which was the first to conquer most of the known
> world. This leaves out the shoulders of hundreds of years of the
> great Intellectual thinkers who preceded Aristotle's axioms of logic
As said, Aristotle was a milestone not the beginning of SOM. It's
spreading with Alexander is correct, but the Romans (an extension of
the Greek culture) also played a part in its influence, not least in
creating the Christian religion which is heavily influenced by SOM or
Intellect.
> not to mention the intellectuals of the east and the world history
> before or aside from Aristotle's method.
In the Paul Turner letter Pirsig mentions the Veda-Upanishads
transition, the latter one of philosophy in contrast to the former of
"god- explanations". The concept "philosophy" is identical to
intellectuality - a search for what is objectively true - thus the
Orientals actually HAD their S/O stage, it did not however develop
into a S/O metaphysics before continuing to a Quality-like stage (why
the MOQ has a Buddhist slant)
> SOL is an explanation to support this fallacious claim which fails
> even in this regard. It can not explain how MoQ fits into it's own
> interpretation. It must invent a 5th level to accommodate it and
> append half of the MoQ to fit the interpretation. Bo's SOL smacks of
> intellectual absolutism, which I shy from.I hope you can understand
> why I choose not to subscribe anymore. Thanks Joe.
Nothing of this is true, the SOL extracts the best parts of LILA and
gives the MOQ its enormous explanatory power that the orthodox
interpretation lacks. For instance, how can there exist a social-
intellectual "moral code" if intellect's definition is manipulation of
symbols? How does this offend social value? No way, while the
"objective" attitude (deeming social value subjective nonsense) is a
great danger to the social-steeped cultures - primarily the Islamic
world - fights with desperation.
Joe later wrote:
> I added the whole quote so that my argument is clearer. Aristotle was
> a great philosopher. If the answer in his metaphysics SOM is
in
> error yet he still saw a value in metaphysics. Bo¹s answer is
> limited to the intellectual level, yet still identifies a value in
> S/O and Aristotle while wrong in developing SOM mind/body, yet he
> still had a profound insight in the formulation of S/O.
Aristotle was important, as was his forerunners and those who
followed and none of those were "in error". SOM (intellect) isn't
wrong other than being STATIC, believing itself to be reality itself.
Only with the MOQ is the total picture unfolded, this creates a moral
code between intellect and the MOQ, intellect vehemently opposes
the MOQ ... in its SOL interpretation that is.
> Pragmatism: as DMB is discovering in his studies, changed the focus of
> metaphysics to value.
> IMO On a list dedicated to the MOQ I ask: why only four levels? I
> must answer why Persig delineated only four. He hinted at another
> level when he suggested that the movement that allowed a different
> cell to penetrate the cell wall of an egg cell for reproduction was
> a DQ intervention.
Most interesting Joe, but I think the biological level covers it all. It
would destroy the MOQ if biology is to be made into several levels.
Surely it is sub-divided, from plants to the mammal organism are
thousands of stages, yet its LIFE. That same goes for the other
levels, look to the 4th how difficult it is for us to see SOM with the first
Greek thinkers.
> The question I ask myself: DQ is undefined! Can DQ in any way be
> described as an agent of change? I answer my question: No! Not and
> remain undefined. No action can be attributed to DQ. ³I know but I
> can¹t say!² is the response to the undefined. The response to an
> action is: ³This happened!²
The the rest of you post is too much (for me to) comment here.
So for now, enough!.
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/
