[MD] The Greeks?

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Mary,


> I don't get what all the fuss is about.  Does it matter to the MoQ whether
> the Intellectual Level existed before or after Socrates?

No

> Is there some
> critical point of order I'm missing?

No


> I don't get the significance of the
> argument about what 'arete' is.  Is it really necessary for every person to
> make an intensive study of Greek culture before claiming to have knowledge
> of the MoQ?

No


>  If you say that we used to have the ability to reason without
> subjects and objects, then lost it - so what?  We had it, we didn't have it,
> only some cultures have it, nobody has it . ok.  I'm fine with any or all of
> the above.  The argument doesn't seem to have anything to do with the value
> of the MoQ itself.


This is where you go wrong, Mary. The issue isn't whether or not
reasoning is possible without subjects and objects. It is about a
certain view of the significance of subjects and objects. As
grammatical terms, subjects and objects are necessary for sentence
construction, and they are harmless. As ontological categories they
can be problematic. It is only when subjects and objects are given
metaphysical significance that we have SOM. It is not an SOM act to
simply utter a sentence like "the cat dropped a mouse on the mat"
simply on the basis of that sentence have a subject and predicate and
something we would call a direct object. That sentence has no inherent
philosophical problems. That just isn't what Pirsig is talking about.

Best,
Steve