DMB, Mary and Group.
28 Apr.:
Bo before:
> ...Then the million Euro question is: What does SOM and Aretê
> translate into in a MOQ context?
dmb says:
> Well, I want to be more specific and just focus on how Arete
> translates into the terms of the MOQ. If you just look at Pirsig's
> description it is obvious that he's talking about Dynamic Quality ..
The ZAMM-MOQ "translation" and eventual harmonization is a most
pressing issue and yes, at the ZAMM stage Pirsig only speaks about
his new-fangled Quality and how it was lost - in his view then - in
connection with arrival of SOM, but for the umpteenth time: What is
this in a MOQ retrospect?
> It is also obvious that no reasonable person could believe he is
> describing static social quality.
Listen, the levels must have been active around 300 BC and its
completely nonsensical to maintain that DQ dominated at some
historical time. I see you skip all my arguments in an effort to sound
the Pirsig defender.
> Again, I'm saying that Bo mistakenly equates Arete with the social
> level. Pirsig says Arete is "ever changing, ultimately unknowable in
> any kind of fixed rigid way." He's talking about DQ. That is exactly
> how he describes DQ in Lila.
God, give me strength. Yes Quality of ZAMM is identical to DQ of the
MOQ, no dispute over that, but DQ did not rule until Plato & Co raped
it .... and if you insist what static level did it emerge as?
> The fact that the intellectual level was emerging from the social
> level is also true, but it's not the same thing. You're confusing two
> separate issues.
You know you are cornered, but unlike Paul who withdrew after the
letter, you go on with some strange debating tactics.
> Again, Bo construes the Sophists as teaching static social quality
> instead of Dynamic Quality.
Besides you don't read my posts. I said the Sophists were the
subjectivists of SOM, i.e. teaching one branch of intellect's S/O-
distinction.
> That misses the central point of the book.
> It undermines the central point of the book and misconstrues the
> central term of the book and misconstrues the Sophists as social level
> subjectivists.
Social level subjectivists!!! See how you mangle my argument. Both
subjective and objective belong to the intellectual level
> That's what Plato said about them! That's the slander
> that Pirsig is trying to undo by showing what they were really up to
> and what we lost when their bones turned to dust.
I know exactly what the MOQ is about, namely to see existence in the
light of the DQ/SQ - and static levels - matrix and thereby unload tons
of misunderstandings and platypis. No level knew its Q-role and to
Plato & Co. the new search for what's real in contrast to illusory (SOM
or what must be the 4th. level) was progress, but along came these
pesky Sophists and said that it was all relative. And now it's you turn to
read from ZAMM:
What was Plato's real purpose in this? Phædrus reads further
and further into pre-Socratic Greek thought to find out, and
eventually comes to the view that Plato's hatred of the
rhetoricians was part of a much larger struggle in which the
reality of the Good, represented by the Sophists, and the reality
of the True, represented by the dialecticians, were engaged in
a huge struggle for the future mind of man. Truth won, the
Good lost, and that is why today we have so little difficulty
accepting the reality of truth and so much difficulty accepting
the reality of Quality, even though there is no more agreement
in one area than in the other.
1) As Plato saw it he defended TRUTH and saw the Sophists as
promoting ILLUSION represented by "man the measure".
2) As ZAMM saw it Plato defended still defended TRUTH but now in
contrast to the GOOD represented by the Sophists (again ZAMM only
had the SOM vs Quality struggle)
3) As the MOQ sees it Plato defended intellect's objective part, while
the Sophists defended intellect's subjective part. That's the only
interpretation possible unless ZAMM and LILA is to remain
unassimilated.
Another passage make this (SOL) interpretation even more clear:
Now Plato's hatred of the Sophists makes sense. He and
Socrates are defending the Immortal Principle of the
Cosmologists against what they consider to be the decadence
of the Sophists. Truth. Knowledge. That which is independent
of what anyone thinks about it. The ideal that Socrates died
for. The ideal that Greece alone possesses for the first time in
the history of the world. It is still a very fragile thing. It can
disappear completely. Plato abhors and damns the Sophists
without restraint, not because they are low and immoral
people...there are obviously much lower and more immoral
people in Greece he completely ignores. He damns them
because they threaten mankind's first beginning grasp of the
idea of truth.
It's plain that this is a new level of static GOOD emerging and that it
must be intellect is more than plain.
Not much hope of a breakthrough, yet.
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/md/archives.html
