Ron:
Second, that is exactly what I'm saying "some things are better than others"
and
not I'm not sure how this is a support to that statement that DQ is
unconceptualized and must remain unconceptualized within the framework of the
MoQ.
Andre:
There is a real danger here I believe Ron. And I think you are far more
qualified than me to reflect on this because you give the impression that you
know a lot more about Plato and Aristotle than I do.
I therefore quote Phaedrus:
'Plato's second synthesis is the incorporation of the Sophists 'arete' into
this
dichotomy of Ideas and Appearance...in this attempt to unite the Good
(unconceptualised) and the True (conceptualised, static good)...Plato is
nevertheless usurping arete's place with dialectically determined truth'.
Ron:
Well, Plato did, in his theory of forms, define the good as eternal and along
with Parmenides and
the Pythagoreans, whole complete and one. Dialectic or elanchus, was used to
induce aporia or
a state of confusion. The dialectics purpose was similar to the koan. I'm not
sure how RMP came
to this conclusion because it is rather much more complicated than that.
Andre:
This, I find, is the danger in conceptualising DQ.
Ron:
It is a very complicated history of how and why the concept of "truth" evolved
into scientific
positivism. Mostly it had alot to do with neoPlatonism and Pythagoreanism.
As Phaedrus argues:
'Once the Good has been contained as a dialectical idea (read Ham's arguments
for example) it is no trouble for another philosopher (not Ham) to come along
and show by dialectical methods that arete, the Good, can be more
advantageously
demoted to a lower position within a 'true' order of things, more compatible
with the inner workings of dialectic. Such a philosopher was not long in
coming.
His name was Aristotle'. (ZMM, p 374)
Ron;
This is one of those statements, if I ever had a chance to speak with Bob, I
would take up with him because
that is a highly inaccurate statement for someone having read "Metaphysics" and
the Socratic dialogs.
Andre:
But if DQ remains unconceptualised is it therefore 'meaningless' as you argue?
To the contrary (I would argue). The same as Pirsig argues. We need something
bigger than ourselves. Pirsig, in the AHP tapes, cites approvingly Abraham
Maslow, who said:
'I've come to think of this humanist trend in psychology as a revolution in its
truest and oldest sense of the word, in the sense of which Galileo, Darwin,
Einstein, Freud and Marx made revolutions' [and he was pointing towards a
higher
level psychology]'... a fourth level psychology: trans-personal, trans-human,
centred in the cosmos rather than in human needs and interests, going beyond
humanness,identity, self-actualization and the like. We need something bigger
than we are,to be awed by it. To commit ourselves to a new naturalistic,
empirical and non-churchly sense. Perhaps as thorough as Whitman, William James
and John Dewey did'.
Ron:
Betterness supports this contention "better" than the non conceptual would'nt
you think? what does the
non conceptual mean? it can't mean anything or it violates non conception.
Andre:
Anticipating a possible response to the tune of: doesn't DQ then become
something unattainable, something the religiously inclined would suggest
requires faith to believe in? I emphatically say: NO! DQ can be experienced
everyday of our lives.
Ron:
Pragmatically Andre, DQ being understood as undefined betterness is more useful
than insisting that it remain unconceptualized.
Andre:
Yes and no Ron. I sympathize with Pirsig when he argues that we should keep all
concepts out of DQ. 'Concepts are always static. Once they get into dynamic
Quality they'll overrun it and try to present it as some kind of concept
itself'( Anthony's PhD, p 35).
RMP:
"Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity.
But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless, doctrinaire
avoidance
of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics
are
made of. Purity, identified, ceases to be purity. Objections to pollution are a
form
of pollution. The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the
world with
fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose
birth
no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something
less pure.
Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of
life."
-Lila
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
