Krimel To Bodvar: > The mess is obvious from that fact that this discussion continues. > Your response leaves open the question why. I would think the only > point of agreement we might have is that Pirsig is the one who created > much of the mess. But SOM and MoQ are certainly not the only options > on the table.
To himself? > Excellent point and one that has been made to Bo many many times. But > just to belabor it; since Bo seems to thrive on repetition and Mary > and Marsha seem to miss it altogether: Pirsig claims that the MoQ > arises out of the static dynamic spilt and that this split supersedes > the subject object split. Pirsig's claim is that Reality = Quality and that the MOQ is some arbitrary arrangement of this Quality Reality, hence his Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics that undermines the MOQ. I claim that the MOQ constitutes the Quality Reality, its Dynamic/Static split and static levels makes for the ultimate flawless metaphysics. > But Pirsig is not the first to make this spilt by any means. Lao Tsu > around 500 B.C. talked the Tao from which Pirsig derived his notion of > Quality and in Lao Tsu Tao is seen as the source and resolution of all > such binary divisions. The static dynamic split was made by Taoists in > the Han dynasty around 200 B.C. In their additions to the I-Ching they > called the active or dynamic force Yang and the passive static force > Yin. The fact the Pirsig or at least his anointed do not understand > this is an ongoing source of irritation to me. But that is off the > subject of Bo's BS. No objections whatsoever, the Tao may well correspond to Quality, I'm no fundamentalist here, my point however is that all such "Reality = X" immediately requires a counterpart, so why not start with the dualism right away? One dynamic, active ...etc. source that causes static, passive ...etc. fall-outs. And now Krimel I ask you to concentrate on this single issue: If Tao is the source then IT must be the Yang Tao that spawns Yin Tao, there is not a super-TAO that accidentally spawns Yang & Yin, but just as well could have spawned X & Y . This is so crucial for the pesky Quality/MOQ issue that I stop here. What do you say? Bodvar > > The early Greeks around 500 B.C. dealt with the same issues in a > slightly different way. The school represented by Parmenides thought > the world was ultimately divisible into atoms (SQ) and the void (DQ). > Heraclitus also around 500 B.C. thought the world was entirely > continuous and indivisible (DQ). In any case these concepts pre-date > or are entirely independent of the Greeks. This particular controversy > among the Greeks has been at least as long lasting and contentious > among western philosophers as the much rehashed mind matter split. > This controversy culminated in Zeno's paradoxes in which he argued > that motion was impossible and the world was entirely static. This > argument was so difficult to dismiss and yet so clearly wrong that it > took more that 2,000 years to straighten out. William James gave a > good account of the problem, without mentioning Zeno, in one of his > last books "Some Problems of Philosophy". There he argued that reality > or at least our perception of it is continuous but that our concepts > about it are discrete. > > Furthermore SO as Mary talks about it did not originate with the > Greeks. It originates in biology. Even single celled organisms that > form together in colonies can detect and are guided by the distinction > between self and other. Plants can draw this distinction and it is > critical to immune function and almost all animals. It is not a > metaphysical concept and it certainly did not originate with the > Greeks. > > Bo in his frequent laughable forays into historical analysis throws > Pirsig into a blender with Julian Jaynes to come up with some imagined > fundamental difference in thinking said to have arisen with the Greek > at some fixed point in time. I am not at all clear on if this is > supposed to be the Greeks of Thales time around 750 B.C.; the > previously mentioned Greeks of 500 B.C. or the Athenian Greeks of 300 > B.C.. But what difference should 400 or 500 years make to the > clueless? Bo concedes some form of intellect to the Vedas which are > among the oldest extant writing known to us. But he denies any such > thinking to the ancient Hebrews yet Ecclesiastes is among the most > profound writings ever penned and the most recent date one could place > on it would be prior to Alexander or around 300 B.C. Intellect is > surely evidenced in the Book of Job where Job seeks a reason for his > trials and tribulations and receives reasoned answers from his > friends. The final form of that book dates to about 400 B.C. and > portions date to before the building of the First Temple around 750 > B.C. > > Personally, I would argue that intellect and the intellectual level > have been a part of human existence since at least Cro Magnon times. > The cave painting in France are stunningly artistic and in Mary's > transcript, Pirsig claims art is among the highest expressions of > Quality. Evidence for the ceremonial burial of the dead certainly > suggest thought processes, shared traditions and a thoughtful analysis > of the human condition among our earliest ancestors as do to the stone > tool kits of Neanderthals. The claim that myths and stories of ancient > people are somehow excluded from the intellectual level also strikes > me as entirely wrongheaded. The oral traditions of every people on > this planet are clearly attempts to understand and explain man's > relationship to the environment and to give reason and purpose to the > lives of the individual who told and listened to them. Discounting > them as "social" or non-intellectual is simply a disingenuous way of > discarding facts that don't match ones preconceptions. It is that > willful ignorance and fundamental dishonesty that make the SOL > "unassailable". > > A good argument can be made that the Greeks did originate a particular > style of thinking but that unique style is the style of mathematical > proof. Even there much of early Greek mathematics was handed down from > the Babylonians and Egyptians and is not entirely discontinuous with > them. The ideas of subject/object and continuous/discontinuous are > merely different outgrowths of this style of mathematical thinking. > > The SOL only persists because Bo has it stuck in his unassailable > skull and throws out anything that does not match his preconceptions. > It is easy to see why Platt buys in; Bo's chauvinistic anti-Semitic > diatribes match his own twisted thinking. Why Mary and Marsha aide in > perpetuating this rubbish is something of a mystery. > > > 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 > > 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
