Hi Matt Thu Feb 5.
Bo before: > What do you think is the logic behind the ambiguity of a Quality different > from Dynamic Quality? Matt now: > I think Pirsig wanted to have an unfolding monism that, on the one hand, > eliminated the Platonic sense of a reality that had intrinsic joints As in the "theism" thread I wonder how difficult and subtle you (people) can possible make something so simple and straightforward. That Pirsig wanted to bring Socrates, Plato, Aristotle & CO, who were the instigators of SOM, to "justice" is elementary. As it is that the SOM has ONE intrinsic joint - the S/O. > that needed to found, ?? > but on the other hand dealt with Parmenides' denial of change -- this > monism evolves. Pirsig's "mission" in ZAMM was to trace the roots of what he saw as the loss of Quality (he had already had the Quality epiphany) in contemporary USA (and the West in general) and found it in SOM which origin he tracked to the said Greek thinkers. He also spotted the last times when Quality ruled to be the Greek Mythological era. And then he went on to write a new metaphysics based on the Quality as Reality's ground. But this necessarily had to become a dualism - there are no other realities - and it's here the big wrong step is taken, but as I understand that you refuse any more talk about that .... However, Pirsigs tracking of SOM (what necessarily must become the intellectual level in the final MOQ, just like the said mythological must become the social) I have no objections about, i's totally convincing. A magnificent achievement. The search for eternal principles, meaning something transcending the mythological "explanation" of existence, you know Chronos (time) arriving and the unfolding of the god realm. Then the cosmologists who suggested various elements as reality's ground, this in contrast to "immaterial" elements: Heraclitus' "Change", and Parmenides "nous" resembling our mind, but this is still pre-S/O times so "fire" was not more objective than "change" and "nous" were subjective. What it all boiled down to was a dualism based on something perishable in contrast to something NOT perishable. After centuries it emerged with Socrates as "Apparent/True", with Plato it became "Shadows/Ideas", with Aristotle "Form/Substance". These may look as contrasting among themselves, but these are facets of the same "fleeting, temporal, seeming, illusory - slash - permanent, eternal, real" and represented a total different existence from the (social) one it replaced and through more twists and turns ended as our SOM. > The ambiguity is induced to suggest a basic, dual perspective with > which we can view the world -- As said there are only dualities. Even if "theism" like to imagine a pre- existing God who created the world, there is no God without the world and vice versa. It is a dualism, and all efforts to create monisms is futile. > we can view it as all one thing for certain purposes, the main one of > which is to help remind us that the current plurality we view the world > for most common day purposes might be shaped differently. Waiting for the smoke to clear ;-) 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/
