[MD] The Greeks?

[Mary]

Hi Steve,

> > 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
> 
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Well, that's a relief!

> 
> This is where you go wrong, Mary. The issue isn't whether or not
> reasoning is possible without subjects and objects. 

[Mary Replies] 
Correct.  To discuss "whether or not reasoning is possible without subjects
and objects" is to discuss SOL - Subject Object Logic, which all life-forms
with a sense of their own 'discreteness' have, but is not the 'definition'
of the Intellectual Level.

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. 

[Mary Replies] 
Correct.  An example of "when subjects and objects are given metaphysical
significance" would be if I were to say to you, 

"I *believe* (metaphysics) the Universe is composed of only subjects and
objects, so I, as a renowned nuclear physicist, will go off and look for a
primary particle because this is what I *believe* (metaphysics again) is the
ultimate reality, and thus, there's no reason to take any other competing
idea, like *Value* seriously.  AND furthermore, I, as a renowned physicist,
will look for this particle even though if I find it your God-fearing
Society might collapse into anarchy, because I have a *disrespectful
attitude* (based on my metaphysical belief, see above) toward all your
backward Social Level religious nonsense."

That pretty much covers all the major aspects of SOM in a nutshell:
1) Everything is either Subject or Object.
2) Disdain for (or dominance over) the Social Level.

Other things you could say 'define' SOM don't really;  they're more
derivative than definitional (like the scientific method for instance).
Once you see that SOM is the Intellectual Level, all the platypi go
scurrying.

What's left that could expand the Intellectual Level to something greater
than SOM?

Can't be art.  I mean, it could be art, but just not 'all' art.  Here's what
Pirsig said about Art on the DVD:
“Oh, art as placed in the levels of evolution.  Well, if you read the
Metaphysics of Quality, you know there are four levels of evolution: the
Inorganic, the Biological, the Social, and the Intellectual.  And art is a
mixture of all of those with Dynamic Quality if it’s really art".

The first time I heard him say this I noticed something else right away.  If
Art is in all levels + DQ, then DQ is still freely accessible to all levels
and not strictly the province of the highest at the time.  I'm not implying
that you ever said that, but someone did.  I hope we can take that one off
the table.

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.
>
[Mary Replies] 
And we agree again!  That's a SOL statement if I ever heard one, and SOL has
existed since the Biological, so we're good with that.

Best,
Mary