Hi Bodvar,Platt, Ian, Ham and all, Remember that Phaedrus is a Sophist. A rhetorician, in ZMM p384, where the Chairman of the Committee, giving class that day '...has never confronted a living Sophist' i.e. Phaedrus. Phaedrus is the protagonist in both ZMM and Lila and I think this is significant
This is an exerpt from Wikipedia on Rhetoric: Ancient Greece The earliest mention of oratorical skill occurs in Homer<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer>'s *Iliad <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliad>*, where heroes like Achilles, Hektor, and Odysseus were honored for their ability to advise and exhort their peers and followers (the *Laos* or army) in wise and appropriate action. With the rise of the democratic *polis*, speaking skill was adapted to the needs of the public and political life of cities in Ancient Greece<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece>, much of which revolved around the use of oratory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oratory_(speech)>as the medium through which political and judicial decisions were made, and through which philosophical ideas were developed and disseminated. For modern students today, it can be difficult to remember that the wide use and availability of written texts is a phenomenon that was just coming into vogue in Classical Greece <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Greece>. In Classical times, many of the great thinkers and political leaders performed their works before an audience, usually in the context of a competition or contest for fame, political influence, and cultural capital; in fact, many of them are known only through the texts that their students, followers, or detractors wrote down. As has already been noted, *rhetor* was the Greek term for *orator:* A *rhetor* was a citizen who regularly addressed juries and political assemblies and who was thus understood to have gained some knowledge about public speaking in the process, though in general facility with language was often referred to as *logôn techne*, "skill with arguments" or "verbal artistry." [10]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric#cite_note-9> Rhetoric thus evolved as an important art, one that provided the orator with the forms, means, and strategies for persuading an audience of the correctness of the orator's arguments. Today the term *rhetoric* can be used at times to refer only to the form of argumentation, often with the pejorative connotation that rhetoric is a means of obscuring the truth. Classical philosophers <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophers> believed quite the contrary: the skilled use of rhetoric was essential to the discovery of truths, because it provided the means of ordering and clarifying arguments.... In the first sentence of The Art of Rhetoric<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_(Aristotle)>, Aristotle says that "rhetoric is the counterpart [literally, the antistrophe<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antistrophe>] of dialectic." As the "antistrophe" of a Greek ode<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ode>responds to and is patterned after the structure of the " strophe <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strophe>" (they form two sections of the whole and are sung by two parts of the chorus), so the art of rhetoric follows and is structurally patterned after the art of dialectic because both are arts of discourse production. Thus, while dialectical methods are necessary to find truth in theoretical matters, rhetorical methods are required in practical matters such as adjudicating somebody's guilt or innocence when charged in a court of law, or adjudicating a prudent course of action to be taken in a deliberative assembly. For Plato and Aristotle, dialectic involves persuasion, so when Aristotle says that rhetoric is the antistrophe <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antistrophe> of dialectic, he means that rhetoric as he uses the term has a domain or scope of application that is parallel to but different from the domain or scope of application of dialectic. In *Nietzsche Humanist* (1998: 129), Claude Pavur explains that "[t]he Greek prefix 'anti' does not merely designate opposition, but it can also mean 'in place of.'" When Aristotle characterizes rhetoric as the antistrophe of dialectic, he no doubt means that rhetoric is used in place of dialectic when we are discussing civic issues in a court of law or in a legislative assembly. The domain of rhetoric is civic affairs and practical decision making in civic affairs, not theoretical considerations of operational definitions of terms and clarification of thought -- these, for him, are in the domain of dialectic. And from the Uni. of Kentucky: *Socrates:* The fact is, as we said at the beginning of our discussion, that the aspiring speaker needs no knowledge of the truth about what is right or good... In courts of justice no attention is paid whatever to the truth about such topics; all that matters is plausibility... There are even some occasions when both prosecution and defence should positively suppress the facts in favor of probability, if the facts are improbable. Never mind the truth -- pursue probability through thick and thin in every kind of speech; the whole secret of the art of speaking lies in consistent adherence to this principle. *Phaedrus:* That is what those who claim to be professional teachers of rhetoric actually say, Socrates. (Plato, *Phaedrus*, 272) Andre: So in terms the above and your query of 'pragmatism' could it be that Pirsig refers to the rhetorical side of the intellectual level as referring to the 'social' and its dialectical side as referring to abstract manipulation of symbols...etc, etc? Platt to Bo, What "pragmatism" has to do with the MOQ I have never understood. Me neither. It's a step backwards from the intellectual level.. Pirsig explains: "But the Metaphysics of Quality states that practicality is a social pattern of good. It is immoral for truth to be subordinated to social values since that is a lower form of evolution devouring a higher one." (Lila, 29) Best, Platt Andre: So when Pirsig talks about solving the conflict between human values and technological needs he suggests to 'break down the barriers of dualistic thought that prevent a real understanding of what technology is...a fusion of nature and the human spirit into a new kind of creation that transcends both. (ZMM p284). When I mentioned to Ian that 'Maybe we need to completely rethink our intellectual processing...' I do mean (Bodvar) rethink our mental processing to something more that SOM' ist intellect. Along the lines of artists having scientific knowledge and scientists having artistic knowledge (ZMM p 287). At present,and I have mentioned this in a previous post, I can only sense the possibility of this fusion taking place in the Code of Art. Am not sure if I have complicated things more by suggesting a fusion of rhetoric/dialectics or whether, hopefully, it may have sparked some ideas with those far cleverer than I am and who have been dipping in this MoQ much longer than I have. I am trying to reach an understanding of the MoQ* from Pirsig's point of view. * And Platt, I agree: As Hardy said to Laurel (and we might say to Pirsig),"This is a fine mess you got us into." Maybe we should just leave the thinking part to the SOM'ists and the Art of living to the MoQ'ers. Afterall, the upshot of the whole thing is to kill all intellectual patterns! For what it's worth. Andre ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 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/
