Hi Bo 1 Dec I wrote:
> You Bo, seem to think there is substantial meaning to be derived by > retaining the meaning of metaphysics as reality, and in a way, you > have a point about theory being the reality we live in, but this , in > my opinion, must be packaged with the understanding that we may not > know any sort of "ultimate" universal, foundational reality with any > sort of absoluteness..... Bo: Us not knowing "ultimate" universal, foundational reality with any sort of absoluteness....." is SOM itself, beginning with Socrates' (objective) TRUTH which is distorted by (subjective) APPEARENCE, From this proto-type the S/O has dressed itself in ever more complex guises, but the basics is still the ineffable objective reality that we principally are shut off from.. Ron: First off Socrates was known for destroying notions like truth it's partly what got him executed. Social authorites arent going to stand for that sort of stuff being taught to their youth. S/O has little to do with the notion that "the wise know they know nothing". Ideas are our reality and they are not, static quality is only a relative point of view of the dynamic absolute. I mean the term "absolute" in that it is undefineable and unknowable in any absolute sense. SOM now, is predicated on the idea of an external reality that may be known with absolute certainty if subjective (emotional) bias is elimenated. Mathematics is such a non subjective method of certainty (so it's assumed) therefore, since the time of the ancient Greeks, mathematics have gone hand in hand with Philosophic notions of objectivity. Ron: > ...... for indeed it is all relative and humans by understanding it, > measure it and that which is measured, is limited. Bo: Here you contradict yourself. If all is relative our respective worlds are equally real or irreal. But "relativity" is SOM's legitimate child and has nothing to do with the MOQ which - firstly rejects the S/O as existence's fundament - and says that static quality reality has been enlarged by new layers You too seem to have come to early out of kindergarten ;-) Ron: You could say I'm kinda half-baked, fair enough. In a way one could say relativity is science going back to it's foundational first philosophical roots. Our respective worlds ARE equaly real or irreal, it's the DQ/SQ divide you speak of. It is real in a Pragmatic sense but irreal in an objective sense. Something which I was rather clumsily stating to Matt, meaning is reality in a Pragmatic point of view. Well to state it more accurately the process, the creation of meaning is reality the only sort of reality we are able to "know". It's a process of continual crafting. Ron: > The power of meaning lies in the method of explaination and > explaination via value relationships has greater explanitory power > than explaination via universal principles of form. Bo: Wow, from where have you "cut and pasted" this learned-sounding nonsense? Ron: I really did'nt expect you to get this idea but it was worth a shot. > Ron adds: This is where it really gets interesting, the dangers of the > use of forms...... Bo: "Dangers of the use of form"? "Form" (the illusory part) versus "Substance" (the objective part) was Aristotle's version of of SOM where (according to Pirsig) we can see the outline of scientific understanding. Ron: Well I think Aristotle has been misinterpreted, a rather unpopular point of view, I understand. It destroys the SOM strawman. Aristotle realizing that the philosphical stance of relativism, or pan-relationalism as Matt prefers, doesent provide meaning or knowledge, in other words, it's not very practical. Book alpha expands on this and states that to make any progress in understanding and knowledge one is going to have to make certian base assumptions, limits, meanings..first principles, axioms. I think it's Gamma where he expounds on the importance of clear meaning in explaination and begins grammaticly with non contradiction. He defines the meanings of the terms "substance" and "matter" and stresses the importance of strict definitions of meaning for these terms, or your explainations are built on a rocky foundations and will crumble To Socratic method. See it's this (according to Pirsig) interpretation of Aristotle and Plato thats a problem I have, for when I read these works myself, I see Pragmatism. When the trouble seems to have started is the recovery of these works from the Arabs in the middle ages. Translated and read out of context of Greek philosophic tradition, it was taken as referring to and partly based on the assumption of, an objective "substance" based reality. The works of the ancients were and are very difficult to follow even if one is steeped in the philosphical questions and traditions they were addressing. So the thinkers of the middle ages went with what they could understand. I mean they were starting from scratch (they did'nt call it the dark ages for nothing) and the works of the ancient Greeks advanced their knowledge immensly it sparked the renessiance,the age of discovery, the age of enlightenment, and the world we know today. If Pirsig did anything, his digging into the past of Greek understanding was the most important. His recovery of Quality what the thinkers of the middle ages seemed to have missed. Partly because Quality was defined by christianity. Aquintas making one of the first efforts at reuniting the two. Ron: > Forms seem eternal, they seem universal partly because > they are created through agreement. Form is measure, it is limit. Bo: Why repeat all this We already know Pirsig's point which is that the Greek thinkers were the midvifes of SOM Ron: Quite an assumption Bodvar. Do we know this? Ron prev: > As Socrates stated, the good may be the first form. The one on which > all others are predicated on. I believe RMP agrees to a point where he > posits that all life understands this form. It must else it would'nt > "be" (exist). I venture, this to be the Parmenidian "one" that > Aristotle takes time to address with the intricacy of unity and plural, > appearances and flux. Pirsig adds Dynamic and static. Bo: Take a break Professor Kulp, We know until exhaustion that ZAMM says that Plato "hijacked" GOOD (Aretê) to serve SOM's purpose. In MOQish it becomes that the intellectual level took over as the highest static good. Ron: Kindergarten to professor, do we KNOW this Bo? because Pirsig said so? Is that enough reason to take his word and inquire no further? If he taught me anything it's to keep inquiring I think he invites us to keep doing so. 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/
