Hi Ron 3 Dec. you spoke:
> 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. Listen young Ron. You must understand ZAMM's enormous scope, which was to give the "Greek Event" (that the Western culture has ruminated for centuries) a totally new interpretation and significance. Many great thinker HAVE gone beyond the traditional democracy and philosophological interpretations, if you remember Scott Roberts whose hero was Owen Barfield, there is one with a take that remind us about the Quality one - yet miles behind Pirsig. Anyway, about a Subject/Object (Mind/Matter) metaphysics born at as that time - and becoming our (Western) world-view to such a degree that no-one knowing any SOM - is Pirsig's unique discovery that puts him in the same league as Columbus And the point is that this must be intuitively understood. To start like you do about "...did Socrates really say so", "..I think Aristotle has been misinterpreted ." or "..do we know this just because Pirsig says so?" is not only to miss the target, but the whole shooting range. All this gives me a disappointing feeling and I wonder why you (all) are here? Why is it that no-one sees the enormous in-out turning of the existential sock that the MOQ represents - or overturning of ditto rock - but scurries like exposed bugs as fast as you can back into the darkness. I've read your post, Ron, you have spent much time on it and it may be worth a Church of Reason pew, but if the MOQ gets bogged down at THIS stage it's killed in the womb. Bodvar > 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/ > > 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/
