dmb quotes Pirsig (ZMM,p 344): "Thus, in cultures whose ancestry includes ancient Greece, one invariably finds a strong subject-object differentiation because the grammar of the old Greek mythos presumed a sharp natural division of subjects and predicates. In cultures such as the Chinese, where subject-predicate relationships are not rigidly defined by grammar, one finds a corresponding absence of rigid subject-object philosophy." (ZAMM, chapter 28)
dmb concludes: So this not only shows that the dualism extends back into the social level, it also shows that non-SOM intellectual philosophies can and do exist. ...C'mon gents. Andre, remembering a quote that appears to contradict this statement, and Bodvar obliges: Anaxagoras and Parmenides had a listener named Socrates who carried their ideas into full fruition. What is essential to understand at this point is that until now there was no such thing as mind and matter, SUBJECT AND OBJECT, form and substance. (ZMM,p367,Bodvar's emphasis) Andre: Just to be clear: Anaxagoras was the first to identify the One as 'nous', meaning 'mind'.( op.cit p366) Parmenides made it clear for the first time that...the One, Truth, God is separate from appearance and from opinion, and the importance of this separation and its effectupon subsequent history cannot be overstated. It is here that the classic mind, for the first time took leave of its romantic origins and said; 'The Good and the True are not necessarily the same.'(op.cit,p366) What this suggests to me (and I stand corrected of course) is that the strong subject/object dualism/ differentiation is indeed present BUT WAS NOT EXPERIENCED AS SUCH at the SOCIAL level.Gods influencing people's lives both positively and negatively, Air, water and fire thought to be the Immortal Principle by respective thinkers. Pythagorians calling it 'number', a non-material 'something'. Heck, the ancient Greeks even listened to the wind and predicted the future from that. (ZMM p 165). In this sense the second quote makes much more sense, in relation to the first, and vice versa. The 'strong subject-object differentiation' came as a result of these arguments. Arguments seen as a way of thinking and reasoning, separating itself from its culture, and establishing itself as the birth of the intellectual level proper. As Pirsig says: 'Those divisions are just dialectical inventions that came later' (op.cit p 367). That is, the socially felt unity of subjects and objects, was argued against, dialectically, as a fallacy. It is here that scientific reasoning was born. Now Bodvar argues that here 'intellect' was born/ established itself, identifying it as the value of the 'subject/object divide'. The part that dominates all intellectual patterns of value. ( Not sure if I represent this correctly Bodvar). I would rather see this (intellectual) ability to separate subjects and objects as a way of organising the world, but not the only one. I do not believe that this 'intellect' is something we are born with (i.e it is not hard-wired). Rather I see it as a form of mass-hypnosis, something pressed into us through education whereby this way of thinking becomes so habituated that we begin to believe that it is the only way. Enough for now. What do you think dmb, Bodvar? Am I making sense? For what it is 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/
