[MD] Social Imposition ?

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

In a message dated 16/12/2006 15:00:27 GMT Standard Time,  
marshalz at charter.net writes:

Mark,

Sounds like a great topic.   It took me a very  long time to really get it.

Marsha



Hi Marsha,
Plato synthesised the two immortal principles of flow and stasis in  his 
philosophy and this is noted in Pirsig's ZMM philosophy.
Plato left flow outside of his work so we are only left with the  static; 
Western philosophy has been, 'footnoting' this aspect ever since.
 
This interpretation suggests that Plato and the moq are identical in this  
regard if and only if you interpret flow as the Good (DQ) and left outside of  
Plato's work, and stasis as knowledge (sq).
In ZMM Pirsig aligned flow to the social level which is slightly misleading  
because the intellectual level had not emerged fully before Plato. When the  
intellectual emerged it was biased toward the static but flow is still there,  
and the appropriate interpretation recognises this.
 
Prof. Clark at the University of Liverpool has been speaking Ancient Greek  
since he was 12 years old and has supervised native Greek students at PhD level 
 - he explicitly insisted to me personally that what in English is translated 
as  the Form of the Good in Plato IS completely outside knowledge and makes  
knowledge possible IN Plato's work.
Others may disagree, and depending on which interpretation you go for  
suggests whether Plato and the moq are identical in this regard: some  translations 
and commentators make it look like Plato felt the Good was static -  
knowledge. I presented this view in an undergraduate essay i  wrote for Clark and he 
bit my head off for it! I've still got that paper with  his Red ink on it and i 
keep it to remind me not to make that mistake  again.
If it is appropriate to recognise this mistake then there are going to be  
those who insist Plato and the moq are NOT identical regarding flow and static.  
Pirsig himself felt they were not, but this may be for the reasons outlined  
above?
However, Plotinus, who was influenced by Plato, DID understand  what Plato 
was driving at, and this may be why Pirsig feels Plotinus is  so close to the 
moq?
 
This means we can go back and unpick the bias in Plato and argue the Good  
creates everything as ZMM argues. That's what you are saying Marsha and it is  
what i hope to do from within the academic status quo.
(The status quo has never forgotten the Good, it just calls it exotic names  
these days and by so doing very often tries to define it. But it still has the 
 same ramifications when presented appropriately: The Good creates 
everything. In  other words, Being IS the Good, or DQ in moq.)
If done the right way this will be accepted openly and advance the moq  
within academia in a way no one has done so far.
In fact, this approach has been recommended to me so i can't accept credit  
for the idea.
I do take responsibility for hoping it to be a good way of advancing the  
moq, and i wish to seek the Forum's advice in this regard.
 
I don't expect anyone who agrees with the moq to argue the Good does not  
create everything, provided they understand the Good is a synonym for DQ.
 
At the end of the day and within academia it all depends on  philosophers 
being convinced the Good creates everything. Some of them already  do and write 
for internationally accepted philosophical journals.
 
Happy days...
 
Love,
Mark