[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[ian glendinning]

Hi Bo, response inserted ...

On 1/13/06, skutvik at online.no <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Ian, Mike may be interested.
>
> I had written
>
> > > It's the realization of an objective reality
> > > independent of subjective human opinion. Read the below from
> > > ZMM and you will understand what the SOL is about.
>
> > >    Now Plato's hatred of the Sophists makes sense. He and
> > >    Socrates are defending the immortal principles of the
> > >    Cosmologists against what they consider to be the
> > >    decadence of the Sophists. Truth, knowledge. That which
> > >    is independent of what anyone thinks about it. The ideal
> > >    that Socrates died for. The ideal that Greece alone
> > >    possesses for the fist time in the history of the world. It is
> > >    still a very fragile thing. It can disappear completely
> > >    [...........] Plato condemns the Sophists because they threatensvung
> > >    mankind's first beginning grasp of the idea of truth. (ZMM p 368)
>
> On 11 Jan. Ian  responded.
>
> > [IG] - I recognise the passage, but I don't get your specific point
> > here ?
>
> Phew, are we back at square one again. We have been
> discussing intellect for aeons and I had the great feeling that the
> "mood" has slowly swung from the source of all confusion - the
> initial "mind-definition" - to a more Quality-like one, namely that
> ZMM is about the social-intellectual transition. If so the above
> cited passage from ZMM is how intellect's "O" looks on its "S"
> represented by the Sophists. This ought not be difficult or
> controversial, it's SOM!

[IG] - If all your telling me is that Plato represents the
intellectual ascendancy of "O" over the Sophists "S" then it's hardly
news. We're at square one because you've taken us back to ancient
Greece. I still don't get your point, your specific point - ie why
you're telling me this, not what your telling me. That I can read.

>
> It's agonizing difficult but one point must be clarified. There are
> two views that intermingle and create confusion if not kept apart.
> I have presented the ZMM experience as the 4th level rising
> above the 3rd and that it may be seen as objectivity-out-of-
> subjectivity, but this is the two views mixed. The first is MOQ's
> the latter is SOM's (the inter-intellect one).

[IG] You may have presented it that way and "it may be seen as", but
that doesn't make it so. In fact that is what we're arguing about. You
see level 4 as "objectivity out of subjectivity". I say level 4 got a
big boost that way thanks to Plato and Aristotle, but they didn't
define level 4, the MoQ does. In the MoQ, level 4 can be far more than
"Objectivity". In fact I maintain it should / must be far more than
that - MoQ gives it a framework in which to evolve further, into the
MoQ itself. This is the point you seem to either miss, or refuse to
acknowledge, even by disagreeing.

>
> To complicate things further the MOQ view has gone through two
> stages, first the one represented by ZMM's moq where the Plato
> vs Sophists struggle is the valueless SOM conquering the value-
> filled past. Then MOQ itself where "the past" becomes the social
> level and SOM becomes the intellectual and only now the final Q
> overview occurs wherein the social level has nothing to do with
> "subjectivism" or intellect with "objectivism", both are the 4th
> level's creations and its value.

[IG] I don't want to argue the detail in that paragraph, but this is
you describing how the MoQ represents the evolution of intellect and
knowledge up to and including Plato. Fine, genuienly fine, I agree
already. But what about thousands of years of improvements since ? I
say it describes that too. (Not to mention where it might go in the
future - it's an evolutionary framework, not a fossil record of past
evolution.)

>
> This has the consequence that the social past (which in ZMM was
> identified with Aretê ) only looked attractive for Phaedrus
> because it is non-dualistic (the same reason that Barfield looks to
> "original participation" as his Golden Age). Unless this second
> phase is completed the MOQ will remain in limbo. Either
> shunning ZMM because it stands out like a sore thumb or - like
> DMB - find some outlandish explanation about the Sophists being
> religious mystics and disappearing into that foggy land.

[IG] - What do you mean by "this second phase" ? Again I can see what
you say, but not why ? Whatever you identify Aretê with in ZMM, we
know it went further in Lila. It sounds suspiciously again that you
want to see the MoQ as complete for all time, (and dare I say, as
dualistic) whereas I say - what a waste that would be. (I'd like to
see some indication that you understand this difference, even if you
disagree.)

Ian

>
> Bo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>