Matt, Marsha, and all involved. 6 Feb.:
Marsha said: > Were Heraclitus, Parmenides, Plato or Aristotle's philosophy theistic? Matt replied: > I take this to be a good example of a "mu" question, at least one that > doesn't have a clear cut answer because of intellectual evolution. > We all remember that Pirsig, following Aristotle, said that "first > philosophy" is called "metaphysics." We should bear in mind that > Aristotle's redactor is the one that named that collection of > manuscripts "Metaphysics." What did Aristotle actually call "first > philosophy" in the Metaphysics? I'm a bit frustrated how you (all) refrain from using the MOQ on the "theism" question. Pirsig says that "no one living in an ordered can avoid metaphysics", meaning that humankind's hallmark is that of ordering their existence. Anthropologists have visited the remotest tribes and they invariably find an explanation of the tribe's origin and destiny. However, Pirsig then went on to undermine this with his metaphysics as some menu different from the real food which is the Aristotelian SOM metaphysics of an objective reality about which mankind makes up theories. In a MOQ context the beginning of ordering existence is identical to the emergence of the 3rd. level. Nothing about any robotic "copying" or whatever silly definitions of "social" that has circulated, but simply seeing beyond the immediate biological hungry-eat, tired-sleep ...etc. existence. The ordering has varied wildly from the first animism variety where everything was alive, to the more elaborate mythologies with a god for every aspect of existence to the latest stage, the monotheist one. Out of this rose the intellectual level's subject/object attitude, starting with the Greek thinkers' search for eternal principles (so convincingly described in ZAMM) meaning an explanation not based on animism, mythology or theology, but on principles that transcend all this, resulting in science, knowledge, the objective, skeptical attitude that still dominates the West (thank God;-) This is of course the SOL interpretation of intellect, but can it be interpreted otherwise? If anyone points to the scientific "ordering" merely being another mythology, yes, according to the MOQ each level is out of- the former level - building on it, yet revolting against it - so deep down intellect shows social roots, but that's not just the 4th. level, society has biological roots and biology has inorganic. That's what static means. IMO 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/
