dmb quoted 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)
Andre and Bo say the quote below appears to contradict the quote above: "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, Bo's emphasis) dmb says:There is no contradiction between the two quotes. The first one says there's a correlation between subject-object philosophies and the structure of grammar in underlying mythos. It says that intellect inherited this dualism from the mythos. It says the dialectical inventions such as subject and object were based on the subject-predicate dualism, giving us the intellectual analog of what already existed. I'm not disputing the notion that intellect was born at this point. I'm just saying there is a reason why it took the shape that it did. Social level religious notions like the distinction between the body and the soul, already contain or pre-figure the mind/matter distinction in philosophy. The distinction between form and substance has had its social level counter part since the invention of pottery, since clay was first deliberately shaped. In each case, the intellectual patterns grow out of the social patterns. We can trace many, many analogs to see that something about the shape of out social level understandings remains even after they've been translated into their intellectual forms. Andre said:What this suggests to me 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). dmb says:It was present but not experienced as such? Mythos and logos are both generated by experience. It's pretty obvious that something is gone when one sees a corpse, for example. The missing vitality of the suddenly inanimate object gives rise to certain questions. What's missing and where did it go? This gives rise to notions of souls and spirits and minds whether you're an ancient witch doctor or a postmodern philosopher. I mean, the subject-predicate grammar structure of the social level and the subject-object dualism of the intellectual level are both analogs of experience. In that sense, it was already experienced in terms of dualistic categories at the social level. Adam was formed out of dust, god breathed life into him and he was eventually thrown out of the garden of Eden. Form and substance, mind and matter, self and world. All this stuff comes from the mythos. This search for immortal principles is part of the back-story and explains Plato's war on the Sophists. You're talking here about the cosmologists, the pre-Socratic philosophers who, like Anaxagoras and Parmenides, wanted to know the eternal truth. They all seemed to agree that there is an eternal truth but they couldn't agree about what the "One", the "Truth" actually is. Plato, being sympathetic with these absolutist thinkers and fearful of relativism, synthesized these thinkers in his case against democracy, common opinions and mere appearances of physical reality. The Sophists were relativists, as far as Plato was concerned. This made them the enemies of Plato's dream of a fixed and rigid eternal truth. The Sophists were more like Heraclitus, who said you can't step in the same river twice. He saw reality as Strife and Flux, where the only eternal thing is change. They weren't relativists, says Pirsig, they were teaching Quality. Andre said: ...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. dmb says: I think we all agree that the intellectual level was born, for the West, around Plato's time. The dialectical inventions handed down to us grew out of the Greek mythos, however, so I think it would be a mistake to say there was a "socially felt unity of subjects and objects". Again, the distinction was built right into the structure of their language. It was already realized at the social level and, naturally, in social level terms. And the existence of this third level analog means the subject-object dualism is not unique to the intellectual level. This is more than enough to undermine the notion that subject-object dualism is equal to the intellect. Dualistic thinking itself would be a better candidate, but to identify intellect with that one particular duality is absurd. If intellect were that narrow how would we be able to discuss it and compare alternatives? Didn't Pirsig use his intellect in making his case against SOM? Can anyone read his anti-SOM books without using intellect? I mean, isn't Bo's SOL theory also defeated by nothing more than an application of common sense? Yes, SOM has been a basic assumption for a very long time. Yes, the Modern scientific world view was based on those assumptions. And it makes sense to say it can be traced back to those dialectical inventions. But Pirsig's point is pressing home the idea that they are inventions, they're just concepts, intellectual level analogs of experience. His point is to show where SOM comes from and how it can be defeated, not to establish an identity between intellect and SOM. His whole project was to replace the scientific world view with a new rationality, one that isn't "value free". If SOM and intellect are the same thing, then this project would be impossible. But he doesn't equate the two. SOM is the defect in the intellect and his new rationality depends on getting rid of that defect. Obviously, Pirsig wants to ditch SOM in order to improve intellect. There are lots and lots of ways that the idea just isn't... ...rational. Thanks. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Life without walls. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_032009 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/
