Mary, All 5 June you had written about ZAMM and the Sophists and concluded:
> So what we're really talking about here is a proto-MOQ level being > born above the Intellectual ..... The issue here is IMO is the budding intellect's subjectivism forming. Its objectivism (TRUTH) had formed with the cosmologists - represented by Socrates and Plato - and the Sophists reported for duty as its subjectivism (there is no truth all is man-made). > - OR - the Social making a new latch for MOQ that once was there and > then was lost with the demise of the Sophists. As ZAMM goes the Sophists are supposed to represent pure Quality, no one can do that, the only time DQ "shows" is the level shifts and the Sophists were intellectual to the hilt. The Aretê exemplified by the Homeric heroes abandoning courage was social value and from at least a thousand years before this event so its plain that they were intellect's subjectivists. It's correct that the Sophist lost out to Plato and the subjective came to mean the - "just" - term, but intellect IS the S/O distinction, subjectivism is an integral part of its constitution and the relationship between the two realms has never been resolved - cannot be resolved and is what has created intellect's many paradoxes - when the S/O schism is regarded as existences fundament. Once the DQ/SQ takes over and the S/O is demoted to a static level the paradoxes goes poof. > Heresy! :) I can see where it'd fit the pattern better for the MoQ to > sit atop Intellectual, but hey, it was latched first with the Buddhists > and the Sophists. So what to do, Bo? Guess that's why you let it > float. No floating. This about the Sophists as the subjectivists I have maintained from day one. I know Pirsig in ZAMM makes a great number of them not as subjectivists, but then in that book there were just SOM and he could not let them be part of that. But as we know SOM is not only materialism - ha! - today every school kid knows that "substance" is a hoax, but that "mind of man" is as much a hoax is less recognized. > Frankly, I'm not sure why the container logic thing even bothers you. > The MoQ that is known or the Dharma that is known is static by > definition, meaning it's gotta go somewhere. Pirsig uses that logic to show that MOQ can contain SOM without problems - which is right with SOM as a static level - but then he goes on to to say that the intellectual level contains the MOQ and this violates the same logic most blatantly. Intellect is sub-sub set of the MOQ and the totality can't be contained by a part. About Dharma I'm out of my depth . > You realize we're going to be burned at the stake for this. Yes if Andre had had his way ;-) 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
