Marsha, Platt, All.
May 21 Marsha said (to Ron)
> > I'm talking, like Bo, of the explanatory strength of the MOQ. It
> > seems to me that if it is clearly stated that the Intellectual Level is
> > of subject/object patterns it becomes very clear that dwelling in the
> > Intellectual Level (no how exalted it seems) is not going to get you to
> > the MOQ point-of-view.
About this Platt said:
> Well said! A clear, concise summary of Bo's position as ever posted. Just
> to add a bit to it I ran across in reviewing Pirsig's notes to the LS his
> description of S/O as "scientific thinking." (Notes 56 & 59) I thought
> that hit the nail on the proverbial head. What we need is less scientific
> thinking and more aesthetic thinking -- a cause you have championed from
> the get go.
Only that the SOL idea (intellect=SOM) isn't really mine, but from
ZAMM ("Pre-intellct" (later DQ) spawns "intellect" (the only static
level) where "intellect" is the SUBJECT perceiving an OBJECTIVE
world. Later, in the Romantic/Classic proto-moq, Classic
Quality=SOM, subtitled "intellect". And as said the are many
examples in LILA.
There is however one point. Platt is correct in identifying "scientific
thinking" with SOM, but that's only its "O" part. As ZAMM tells the
Greek philosopher's search for "eternal principles" was what broke out
of the old mythological reality. The first phase ended with Socrates
"truth", then began the next phase about WHAT was true. Plato
claimed it was IDEAS, Aristotle said it was SUBSTANCE ... and here
"science" was according to Pirsig.
Before I have claimed that what contrasted Truth, namely the illusory
or apparent, was what became SOM's subjective part, but I have
come to the conclusion that there were no one who claimed that the
apparent (illusory) was the real thing and we hear of no disagreement
between any "truthists" and "apparentists". What inflamed Plato was
the Sophist's claim that "man" was the measure" (of what was true
and false), and this was the birth of SOM.
I see that DMB and Anthony discuss Plato's Good (Aretê):
> Yes, the short and obvious answer is that Plato's Good is static while
> Pirsig's Quality is dynamic.
Phew! As if there was a "Pirsig's Good" that confronted Plato's Good,
there were the Sophists vs Plato and the former's claim that the
subject was the measure of everything sounded GOOD - obvious - to
them, just like that of an objective reality (Truth) independent of man
sounded GOOD to Plato. And ever since SOM has alternated
between these two impossible positions.
In a MOQ context this "man (subject) versus an independent
(objective) truth" spells the intellectual level emerging from the social
- that did not give a damn about this. That intellect's emergence was
a dynamic process is plain so in that case both Plato & Co and the
Sophists were equally "dynamic".
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/
