Hello Andre. 12 Aug.:
I had said: > > 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). The latter definitely, only that the ZAMM diagram does not have any social level, in that book what became social was QUALITY itself - the lost paradise that SOM ousted existence from. Phew, the translation from ZMM is exhausting. See below. > OK: no1: does the 'orthodox' camp subscribe to the view that this > 'classic quality' arose out of intellect? In ZAMM's proto-moq Quality was split Romantic/ Classic, and it's not difficult to see the DQ/SQ in this. But the diagram is misleading in the sense of there being no "Quality" left after a metaphysical split. Romantic is the dynamic aspect from which the Classic emanated. But in the final MOQ DQ has spawned 4 static levels and the crucial point is that the intellectual level should have remained the S/O split. Now, ZAMM must necessarily be interpreted in MOQ's light and the orthodox see SOM as a faulty intellectual pattern taking over from the Aretê which must be some good intellectual pattern. This is absurd, it leaves everything "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). You are right. ZAMM is about the intellectual level emerging out of the social - Classic out of the Romantic - "taking leave of its romantic origins" - Truth parting company with Good - because P. regarded social good as the paradise lost. > 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. Definitely, it's just untenable 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!) It's the Aretê as Quality itself in ZAMM, compared to ...as social quality in LILA I hint to. I mean what good is social quality without any knowledge of the overall Quality context? Bodvar 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/
