[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[skutvik at online.no]

Matt and Group.
 
On Friday 9 Nov. you wrote
 
> My revision has one main goal: I think Pirsig, like many philosophers,
> looked to Greece and saw their own thing happening, rather than the
> important thing happening. Disciplinary chauvinism happens all the
> time, but the important thing in Greece wasn't Socrates, but Solon and
> Pericles--it was democracy, not philosophy.  It was the burgeoning of
> a democratic culture for the first time. 

Your "revision" you can ... dear Matt, but this paragraph interested me 
because the Greek part (SOM in ZAMM) clearly indicates that P. saw 
this as an important existencial shift. Yet, when LILA arrived what 
SHOULD have become the emergence of the 4th level had changed 
into a pollution of a pre-existing intellect. For the rest of LILA this is 
treated as "science" or "knowledge" that have forgotten its social 
origin.

ZAMM's presentation of the Greek episode is however spot on. What 
emerged was the notion of TRUTH different from MERE OPINION. 
Through the centuries - millennia really - it emerged in the modern 
form as a material world that follows natural laws, laws that the subject 
(mind) can unravel, thus Socrates,  , Aristotles are very important. 
Democracy is a windfall from this initial upheaval.  

> My main beef with Pirsig's social/intellectual split is that it is
> typical of a philosopher--social conventions on one side, life of the
> mind on the other.  It is elitist in the wrong way. 

If you see the said Greek event as the intellectual level's emergence 
you are "my man" and why not join me in making it clear that - in a 
MOQ context - SOM=the 4th. level. After that is settled we may 
discuss what's wrong with THAT view. Nothing is according to me, but 
let that wait.      

> All this talk about pre-intellectual experience:  think about it:
> according to Pirsig, could pre-intellectual be pre-linguistic? No,
> because humans had language before Greece.  Could pre-intellectual be
> pre-reflective?  No, because it would seem to be clear that we could
> reflect before Socrates came along, too.

In this I actually agree, but it's the understanding of what "intellect" 
means which is the fulcrum, so no more for now.

BoBo