Hi fellow dinosaur DMB
Fri Mar. 13
> 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.
Dave, can't you stop quoting ZAMM without any reference to what it
means in moqish. Mythos/Logos = social/intellectual ..no? Or do you
suggest some sub-structure inside the MOQ?
The upper level out of the lower is plain, also that language followed
on to the intellectual level, but nowhere does LILA hint to any pre-
intellectual "SOM" ... NB! Pirsig did so after I had pointed to the
missing intellectual content in the old bible books (in the PT letter)
looking conspicuously like "missing SOM" and he stated that warning
cries about crocodiles and prayers was "social SOM". This is so
pathetic and against the grain of the MOQ that I gave him up.
> 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.
The intellectual level will take the shape of S/O aggregate anywhere
and everywhere. The alleged non-S/O intellect that the Upanishads
philosophy spells in the Oriental Culture was also a search for truths
beyond the Veda mythology, but it never developed the way it did in
the West to become a static level, before they moved on to some
Quality-like stage. Why there is some likeness, and why Pirsig
spotted it, but he should have dropped it, now the Zen is a drag.
> Social level religious notions like the distinction between the body
> and the soul, already contain or pre-figure the mind/matter distinction
> in philosophy.
You have it upside-down. It was the emerging Christendom making
major Greek thinkers "Church Fathers" that transformed its original
Jewish non-intellect content into one heavily intellect-influenced. For
instance humankind being endowed with a soul. To pre-empt any
objection the soul wasn't objective nor the body subjective in "our"
mind/matter sense. What has been what has varied, but always one
real and one just seeming component is SOM's "trade mark".
> 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.
Your academical study leads you farther and farther away from the
MOQ, pottery's clay and shape reflecting what Aristotle meant with
substance vs form?!! Aristotle's was a continuation of Plato's, but
here the real became substance and the "just seeming" became form.
Pottery? All cultures through all eras has made earthenware without
making it to the intellectual plane.
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.
Ancient people surely knew the dead from the living and the Myth's of
old were elaborate explanations of an existence beyond, but it was
not "spiritual" but a continuation of this existence at another place We
know it so well from the Norse mythology; drinking, eating,
fornicating, fighting to death just to be awakened to another round.
The social-level Semitic religions Jewdom and Islam still has this
corporeal attitude, every sliver of a dead (bomb victim) must be
collected to secure a complete resurrection (Allah makes an
exception for the martyrs). The "spirits" of Indians surely stems from a
translation of a word not found in English. F.ex the Voodoo "spirits"
has nothing to do with the Greek-Christian soul term.
> 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.
Now you are on "glatteis". If this applies then different SOCIAL levels
must exist dependent on the language in use. See all efforts to avoid
the SOL makes the MOQ more and more bland. About Parmenides
and Co. I will return to in a post to Andre.
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/
