Hi Bodvar, you say: MOQ's existence is the DQ/SQ "aggregate", consequently the Greek part of ZAMM must have been either a new level emerging or an evolution inside a level. The orthodox camp (Ant, DMB & Co) subscribes to this view - all took place within intellect - while the SOL says that it was intellect emerging from society. I hope you will find your place because there are just these two alternatives.
Andre: By 'the Greek part of ZAMM' you mean 'arete' ? (which, my understanding says, was/is a social pattern of value, dharma, duty to oneself...held against the endless landscape from which the 'proverbial' sand is taken). Or, do you mean the emergence, from the social level of , what Pirsig calls (in his diagram on p243) classic quality (intellectual reality). OK: no1: does the 'orthodox' camp subscribe to the view that this 'classic quality' arose out of intellect? This, if it is true, cannot be so as Pirsig clearly states that, under Parmenides the classic mind took leave of its romantic origins (pre-intellectual reality). The True and the Good are not necessarily the same. Under Aristotle, the knife continued as 'substance' was carved out to which appearances cling (surface[subject/object] reality) and 'at that moment, and not until that moment, our modern scientific understanding of reality ( your SOL I suppose?) was born' (p 374). And the romantic understanding was used to syrup-over the real, harsh realities of Truth, to make it (socially) palatable (mannerisms and forms, Aristotelian forms,p375). I mean, if 'all took place within intellect' then we have an idealist/subjectivist problem don't we? Or am I way off the mark here. Bodvar: As mentioned the SOL says that the ZAMM's SOM was intellectual quality emerging from social quality, but then the question arises where were the "Metaphysics of Aret?" before Pirsig Andre: Never heard of it. (Churchianity?Pfhhhhhhhh!) Bodvar: I merely give "unto Caesar what Caesar's is" by placing S/O in the position as the highest static good, the greater Q-context dissolves SOM's paradoxes. Maybe this is what you say by ".. operating at different levels of consciousness" In my lingo "our focus shifting between the levels". Andre: See my earlier sent post to you and John and Platt and All. It may well be advantageous to have the S/O method to provide us the basis for deeper understanding. As paradoxes invariably force us to go to a deeper level of understanding to find their complementarity and not their (apparent/seeming) opposition. This is what I mean by your 'greater quality context'. As Pirsig says on p76 of ZMM: " Such an understanding will not reject sand-sorting or contemplation of unsorted sand for its own sake. Such an understanding will instead seek to direct attention to the endless landscape (DQ) from which the sand(SQ) is taken. That is what Phaedrus, the poor surgeon, was trying to do'. (my additions) Thanks Bodvar, All for now Andre. 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/
