Hi Matt
18 May.:
I had said:
> > All philosophers and historians point to this time as a great
> > watershed in history, mostly it's the usual "democracy", but some see
> > deeper upheavals of which democracy and science were mere fallouts (Owen
> > Barfield f.ex) Pirsig's however is the grandest and most convincing
> > interpretation.
Matt:
> In my experience, all philosophers and most classicists point to
> "philosophy" as the watershed thing that happened. For a long time, I
> wished they said "democracy," but now I'm pretty sure we should be a
> bit more nuanced, and the big thing is clearly the transition from
> "primary oral culture" (the term used to denote a culture that has,
> basically, never even heard of a thing called written language) to a
> post-literate culture.
Ok, "democracy" (politics) or philosophy, or science, or mathematics
or .. whatever, all indicates a new attitude, one of categorizing
existence into "logies" and "nomies" and at the root of it all is what
ZAMM calls SOM which - in a MOQ context - spells the intellectual
level. It's crystal clear. Please be as the nuanced as you want but I
have the sinking feeling that all these nuances and new angles just
have one purpose, namely to point to other contexts than the MOQ..
However, the written symbol instead of the spoken is no watershed
IMO. Homer wrote and he was a thousand years before the
philosophers. That goes for the Egyptian hieroglyphs and the
Babylonian clay tablets. Homer's authorship is used by Pirsig in LILA
as an example of the social stage reality of demi-gods and
superhumans possessed by great emotions (the social expression)
nothing intellectual about "I think" or "in my (subjective) opinion".
"Literate" in the sense of people in general reading did not occur until
after Gutenberg (in the Western World) .
> And while I still like to say a "big thing" happened, I say "nuanced"
> because I think we need a more complex story about cultural evolution
> then just pointing to all the potential precursors to Descartes'
> explicit S/O dichotomy (and, hell, not even his, it was probably some
> German's construction). Because, as you say,
Bo said:
> > And of course the subject/object term were still far into the future
> > (not to speak about mind/matter) yet the idea is that the notion of
> > principles deeper that the old mythological reality triggered a new
> > attitude. Its first fallout was Socrates' Appearance/Truth, then Plato's
> > Shadows/Ideas and finally Aristotle's Form/Substance. The first
> > indicating the fleeting, transient element, the latter the eternal
> > permanent one. This split to become the fundament of the Western
> > SOM-based culture. (The East to have transcended it) Now so cemented
> > that you folks don't even manage to imagine yourself outside of it.
> You might say I'm just trying to be more historically conscientious,
> but I'm sure there's more going on with you. But then your last
> statement pretty much expresses fully why conversation about the
> matter is boring.
I was once "bug" inside SOM's smelly confinement and suddenly
seeing existence being turned inside-out and a fantastic new vista
opening up. And I can't let anyone "turn the sock" on me - not even
Pirsig, I just can't fathom he not seeing that everything hinges on the
intellectual level being the subject/object (or mind/matter) distinction, it.
However intellect is the highest static level and you are free to
examine the past and be historical conscientious and discover
nuances galore, I only protest when you hint to other interpretations of
"the Greeks" than SOM. If not the MOQ is nil and void.
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/
