[MD] The Greeks?

[Mary]

Hi Matt,

On Behalf Of Matt Kundert
> Hi Mary,
> 
> As the supposed resident elitist 
[Mary Replies] 
A pleasure to meet the resident elitist!  Every group should have one.  I'm
in the running for resident eclectic iconoclast, myself. ;)

(though look how quickly
> people turn on DMB when he starts flashing around stuff
> he's learned in seminars)
[Mary Replies] 
DMBs fine, just a little stubborn.  His butt must have gotten sore sitting
on that bench though.

, let me say that I don't think
> people need to study Greek culture before working with
> the MoQ.  I don't think there is any necessary list of
> priorities one needs to work through when they sit down
> and do philosophy (i.e. reflect on life).
> 
[Mary Replies]
Yes.  I think the basic requirement is to be alive and somewhat interested
in that fact.

> But, when you ask, "Does it matter to the MoQ whether the
> Intellectual Level existed before or after Socrates?" I would
> want to reserve the right to say, "It might."  When
> philosophers become historical and start listing the times and
> dates they think something momentous occurred, it can be
> very illuminating to what, exactly, they think it is that
> occurred.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
You play your cards close to the vest, but me?  Ask me anything.  Pirsig,
for instance, makes a pretty impressive case that IPOVs really needed
Socrates to grind that good 'ole Dharma/DQ of the Iliad into proper 'form'.
I've never cared much for the emotional appeal, as in Ch. 29 of ZMM.  But he
just sounds harmlessly excited with the discovery of a new idea.  That's
always cool in my book and his case does sound convincing... but what do I
know?  In 2008, Fidelity told me my 401k was in great shape too.

> For example, if one were so inclined to say "the Intellectual
> Level had its first defender in Socrates, and codifier in Plato,"
> then you'd have an interestingly controversial set of old
> antagonisms to think through: especially, Sophist vs. Plato.
> And because of what Pirsig says about Plato and the
> Sophists, it gives you something to think about, about just
> what Pirsig is saying when he identifies the intellectual level
> as emerging in 5th century Greece in one book, but that
> Plato did something dangerous in the previous one.  It gives
> you something to work through, to tease apart just what
> Pirsig meant and what the consequences are of what he
> meant.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Yeah, well that's why I asked the question.  This has stirred some recent
controversy and somehow I imagine it could stir some between you and me as
well.

> Identifying the intellectual level with Socrates is often an
> old philosopher's trick to get other people to think that what
> they do (as footnotes to Plato) _is_ (rather than _was_) a
> culturally momentous task.  
[Mary Replies] 
I always suspected philosophers were devious.  Tell me it ain't so, Matt!
But, that's an interesting statement you make there.  I'll see your
statement and raise you one.  As far as I know, no one but Pirsig has ever
mentioned an "Intellectual Level" in their work.

Thinking through whether you
> agree with that, or with the Sophists who thought
> themselves handmaindens rather than the avant-garde (and
> in what sense with whomever's side you take), can be
> important.  But one can probably get the hang of the MoQ
> without thinking about it, just as one can get the hang of
> modern physics without tangling with Francis Bacon's fight
> with the Ancients.
> 
> Mary said:
> To discuss "whether or not reasoning is possible without
> subjects and objects" is to discuss SOL...
> 
> Matt:
> Given the scope of what Steve was talking about, would it
> be fair to say that you've just identified SOL with
> "language-ability"?
> 
> Perhaps not, since you go on to imply that animals have
> SOL capabilities, but by that time you've gone beyond what
> I think Steve was willing to say.  Because, if you think that
> SOL is simply the power of "discrimination," I'm not sure why
> we need the fancy acronym, and especially the word "logic."
> Are you just talking about the ability to distinguish this from
> that?
> 
[Mary Replies] 
SOL is an old term around here that to my amazement I'm finding few to
remember the original meaning of.  Basically, anything that has an ego.  My
dog, for instance.  So easy to hurt her feelings or delight her.  But yes,
the basic ability to care about the difference between self and not-self.  

Not at all the same thing as SOM.

You ready to show me some cards?

Best, :)
Mary

> Matt
>