Hi John, Thank you for your questions. I can provide my opinion as input to this discussion. I will address both your topics below, inserted into the text you provided.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:16 AM, T-REXX Techs, Inc. <[email protected]> wrote: In ZMM Pirsig clearly asserts that In Plato's system arete is "the Good", and it is subordinated only to "the True", but "truth" is that which is arrived at by the method of dialectic, this subjecting arete to debate and definition in the dialectic method. This subordination of arete to truth is critical to Pirsig's insistence that Quality must remain undefined and undefinable. But other sources affirm that Plato's ethical system affirms "the Good" as the highest form of knowledge. One writer refers to "the Good" as "Agathon", not "arete". He says, "The transcendence of the Agathon makes immanent propositions about its content impossible." That sounds very much like arete. Can anyone sort this out for me? Mark's comments: Pirsig is using the story of Plato as a metaphor for a bigger issue. This analogy is meant to point one towards the singular path which the West has taken. One can see from Pirsig's own assertions that he was not an expert on Plato, and did not claim to have read the body of work from that author. Since he had just started in graduate school, he was able to view Western philosophy from the vantage as an outsider which freed him from the ongoing academic discussion and rigid interpretations. He was clever and found flaw in the teachings he was receiving. Therefore, the specifics of what Pirsig presents must be put into the context of what he was trying to present. From my readings of Plato, Pirsig and Plato were describing the same thing. The context in which Pirsig is providing the Plato analogy can be considered as a "turning point in Western thought". In my opinion, Pirsig is saying the same thing as Parmenides did in his poem, which was written before Plato, (which indicates that this Western Sensibility started before Plato). At the time of Plato's writings there were many of the mystical persuasion, Socrates being one of these. He could "space out" for many hours and be in touch with Quality without the conversations surrounding it. This was a form of awareness. Because of this ability, he attempted to put reason in its place, and was therefore on the side of Pirisg. He could show people the inadequacies of logic an reason and demonstrate that we are ignorant. In my opinion, a better protagonist would have been Aristotle who misdirected the West until the Renaissance and beyond. Even today we are of the mindset of Aristotle with all our naming and cataloguing. Pirsig is pointing to the false elevation of a depiction of reality as overriding reality itself, and he chooses Plato to explain this. Within this depiction there is the truth as imparted by words. This can also be called reason. This "reason" has a bewitching aspect on our thinking that was understood by the mystical. Pirsig points to the elevation of reason above Quality. He does the same thing in Lila by creating the DQ/SQ dichotomy, where SQ dominates our culture. This same dichotomy is referenced in terms of the dialectic and rhetoric. The dialectic suggests that a truth can be arrived at through opposing forces enabled by reason. Rhetoric is different in that its aim is to convince. An analogy here could be that dialectic is math, and rhetoric is music. In rhetoric, the manner in which things are presented override the truth within. The Sophists were good at rhetoric, apparently. What Pirsig is pointing to in terms of Arête (again, my opinion) is the awareness of a directionality in the universe. This directionality is towards the Good as presented by Plato. Arête is not a series of actions, but a place from which those actions stem. While it can be presented through examples, Arête in no-thing, it is an attitude (something which Pirsig spends time presenting). I would go so far as to suggest that attitude is yet another way to explain DQ. From attitude comes the discrimination of thought. Different attitudes lead to different thought patterns. In summary I don't think it is extremely useful to perseverate on the example which Pirsig presents. What is important is to become aware of the "tone" in which these examples are presented. Flaw can be found in any description, which is why any discussion should not focus on these specifics but rather the attitude providing them. When we go down to the specifics "as truth", we are going in the wrong direction. Previously from John: I need some practical assistance here. I know that we all operate day to day with a paradigmatic set of unexamined beliefs or assumptions about the nature of reality. These beliefs seem to me to derive implicitly from some culturally pervasive metaphysics that may have been specifically articulated in the past and has since become diluted and absorbed into current society. Would I be wrong to say that a metaphysic is an articulated system of assertions about the nature of reality, while one's paradigm of reality is a socially inherited and unarticulated operational framework? Please let me know your definitions of metaphysics, paradigms, and their relationship. Mark comments: I can provide an opinion here within the context of MoQ as I understand it. As Socrates suggested, the unexamined life is unlived. Ignorance is the basis for all suffering (My words of course, but not new). It is interesting how all these great thinkers came around the same time, and said the same thing although they were located far apart. I agree with the culturally pervasive metaphysics, which is why I consider Science to be a metaphysics. That it is not recognized as such is the result of this "dilution" you speak of. I would put this dilution differently by saying that cultures have forgotten the nature of knowledge. This Pirsig refers to as SQ. What was once an idea has become a credo. I find it difficult to separate ones belief system into the categories you present. Any metaphysics is shaped by culture. The difference, I believe, is in the attitude on takes towards this metaphysics or framework. By creating his example of DQ/SQ, Pirsig has suggested that there is more to existence than the operational frameworks that is worked within. SQ does not exist alone. It is incumbent on the individual to question the paradigm (operations system) he is working within. For only then does one escape from the paradigm and act freely. The bewitchment of any paradigm as being reality is strong. Not everybody needs escape, and the mystic would say that such people remain asleep. This is of course part of the mystical paradigm. Through his books, Pirsig suggests a new paradigm, or a paradigm switch. What Pirsig presents is not new and is simply a different way of saying what has been said many times before; to view the universe as Quality as moral is a manner of awareness. What do we think the heart of religion is all about? Quality is then nothing more than this awareness. As with any awareness frameworks are constructed. However, these constructions (MoQ) should not be confused with the awareness that brought such structure forth. The awareness of this awareness (as it were) keeps one free from the bewitchment of SQ. A note on awareness. Awareness must not be confused with thought. Thought is shaped by awareness. Awareness is more of a "setting". Awareness cannot be pointed to except through thought. Thought can illuminate aspects of awareness like the sun shines on objects. However, the sun does not shine on all objects all of the time. Therefore what is illuminated by thought is like carrying a flashlight around in the dark while finding one's way through a forest and seeing trees. Awareness is the walking and the forest as a whole. This is an interactive phenomenon. While awareness provides the foundation for thought, thought can influence awareness, by providing a reason to switch. To enter into Quality, one must dismiss the current awareness and enter into a new one. This switching can have disastrous effects as presented by Pirsig through his autobiographical honesty. It is not trivial to grab Quality, but one certainly knows when that happens. It is no different to Zen enlightenment. Everything stays the same, but the awareness changes. Hope you find these opinions interesting. Best regards, Mark Office: 407-859-2637 Cell: 321-438-6301 Home: 407-857-2004 Email: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] 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
