Matt, The point you bring up about the development of the written language is largely on the mark, but to be more precise, about what brought about the particular Greek philospical situation is the fact that they used a Semitic language and not pictographic. This alone allowed for the creation of abstract ideas that have no corresponding expereince. It is rather interesting to note that this coupled with the unique qualities of greek democracy and standardization of grammar along with the emergance of an aristocratic (note the root) class kicked off the notion of philosphy or first science. The rise of the Macedonians and their subsequent conquest may be credited for the spread of Greek philosphical ideals in the ancient world. I feel the that Greek analytic did not stick among the cultures which used pictographic languages ( chinese, egptian,etc) is because of their limited ability to convey abstract symbols. Consequently different language structures produce their own unique philosphical paradoxes. ( the chinese paradox of the white horse for ex.)
Because of the semetic nature of the greek language and it's ability to evolve in complexity using abstracts, systems of deduction began to emerge. (some credit the destruction of Minoan society as opening up the rise of Greek culture) Dumb luck, fortune, opportunity and conquest are just as important in the factors involved in the creation of the western world we know today. SOM or Intellect as some like to call it is more a result of random fortune than the next logical step in human development in evolutionary terms and to assume that it is, lends false notions of not only evolutionary processes but of cultural superority, not to mention a host other assumptions. Thanks for the post. -Ron ________________________________ From: Matt Kundert <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:20:37 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Philosophy, Metaphysics, and Common Sense DMB, DMB said: Matt has never seen the value of the point I was making about the dynamic. That's also what I thought he left out of his essay. Each of you has your own reason, but you both disagree with me on this. I think it's really obvious that Pirsig does too. Look for the opposition of "fixed" and "ever-changing". You don't have to be a philosopher to see that as a description of "static" and "dynamic". Plus there's the dharma and the arete of the Sophist. There is the fact that SOM was already pre-figured at the social level, including the grammatical structure of the language. And then there's the point that Plato was an intellectual but not a SOMist. Matt: I'm willing to concede, especially after this, that I don't think I understood your point. And that I didn't recognize you as reasserting a point you've continually made, that I've undervalued. Now, certainly my reasons for leaving out notions of "fixity" and "flow" (ideas the Greeks were trying to get their heads around, epitomized in Parmenides' Unchanging monism and Heraclitus' ever-changing flux) have a lot to do with not wanting to write the same essay every time, but rather focus on different things to shine light in different corners. Nor do I really have a lot of interest in simply repeating Pirsig's story, but much more in telling parallel stories that (as far as I can see) reinforce his (granted, if I happen to disagree with his at various points, we all know I will). I again apologize for not writing that book you wanted, but if you limit yourself to five pages at a time in an effort to produce things that are coherent, though limited, then disappointment is something I'll have to live with. But these issues, my different focuses and goals in writing than your's, are fairly ancillary (as distracting as they may be for either of us). It would appear that you think I'm denying the existence of the Dynamic/static distinction, or something similar. I'm not sure why, however, as I take it one doesn't have to tell a story about the evolution of _that particular distinction_ every time one is telling a story, and one can even take that distinction as the operative dynamic, as it were. I was telling a story that I wanted to be useful to many different kinds of audiences, not an essay in Pirsigology (of which I have a selection of on the site, mainly culled from discussions here). As I see it, it isn't that hard to find the static/dynamic dynamic in the essay, indeed pretty much just material that simply reinforces what Pirsig was saying (despite not canvassing every point that Pirsig himself made). Matt _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® has a new way to see what's up with your friends. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_WhatsNew1_052009 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/ 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/
