[MD] The Greeks?

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Mary

5 June:

> 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? 

If the 4th. intellectual level is the (value) of the subject/object 
distinction it must have occurred in the Western Culture the way 
ZAMM describes SOM.  However it may have arrived in the Orient with 
the UpanishadsUpanishads as Pirsig says.  

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

If the social level was transcended before the said description in 
ZAMM then intellect is something I have no idea what is. Remember 
the quote from ZAMM about Socrates' martyrdom as a milestone for 
the intellect's way to "power" so Phaedrus at least was convinced that 
SOM and the Greeks were identical with intellect. 

> 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?  

The interesting thing is how to "translate" ZAMM into MOQ-talk. What 
was it that happened when SOM ousted Aretê? (as ZAMM describes 
it) and why Pirsig refused to address this issue? 

> 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. 

Reason in the sense of thinking or intelligence has of course nothing 
to do with the 4th level and intellect did not mean any loss, rather that 
a new and higher level demanded "computer time" or more plainly 
kicked the social level out of the computer (thinking) chair  The MOQ 
is in some sense a new "level" that does the same with intellect, but is 
so generous as to give all levels their allotted computer time. 


Thanks for your always meaningful inputs.

Bodvar