[MD] The Greeks?

[skutvik at online.no]

Mary, All

5 June you had written about ZAMM and the Sophists and concluded: 

> So what we're really talking about here is a proto-MOQ level being
> born above the Intellectual .....
 
The issue here is IMO  is the budding intellect's subjectivism forming. 
Its objectivism (TRUTH) had formed with the cosmologists - 
represented by Socrates and Plato - and the Sophists reported for duty 
as its subjectivism (there is no truth all is man-made).    

> - OR - the Social making a new latch for MOQ that once was there and
> then was lost with the demise of the Sophists.  

As ZAMM goes the Sophists are supposed to represent pure Quality, 
no one can do that, the only time DQ "shows" is the level shifts and the 
Sophists were intellectual to the hilt. The Aretê exemplified by the 
Homeric heroes abandoning courage was social value and from at 
least a thousand years before this event so its plain that they were 
intellect's subjectivists. 

It's correct that the Sophist lost out to  Plato and the subjective came 
to mean the  - "just" - term, but intellect IS the S/O distinction, 
subjectivism is an integral  part of its constitution and the relationship 
between the two realms has never been resolved  - cannot be 
resolved and is what has created intellect's many paradoxes - when 
the S/O schism is regarded as existences fundament. Once the 
DQ/SQ takes over and the S/O is demoted to a static level the 
paradoxes goes poof.    

> Heresy! :)  I can see where it'd fit the pattern better for the MoQ to
> sit atop Intellectual, but hey, it was latched first with the Buddhists
> and the Sophists.  So what to do, Bo?  Guess that's why you let it
> float.  

No floating. This about the Sophists as the subjectivists I have 
maintained from day one. I know Pirsig in ZAMM makes a great 
number of them not as subjectivists, but then in that book there were 
just SOM  and he could not let them be part of that. But as we know 
SOM is not only materialism - ha! - today every school kid knows that 
"substance" is a hoax, but that "mind of man" is as much a hoax is 
less recognized.    

> Frankly, I'm not sure why the container logic thing even bothers you. 
> The MoQ that is known or the Dharma that is known is static by
> definition, meaning it's gotta go somewhere.  

Pirsig uses that logic to show that MOQ can contain SOM without 
problems - which is right with SOM as a static level - but then he goes 
on to to say that the intellectual level contains the MOQ and this 
violates the same logic most blatantly. Intellect is sub-sub set of the 
MOQ and the totality can't be contained by a part. About Dharma I'm 
out of my depth .  

> You realize we're going to be burned at the stake for this.

Yes if  Andre had had his way  ;-)

Bodvar