[MD] Consciousness a la Ham

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
..the way to understand these comments is in terms of static versus dynamic, not in terms of the social and intellectual levels. We see this more clearly, even explicitly, in the next paragraph. There he says, "The difference was that Plato's Good was a fixed and eternal and unmoving Idea, whereas for the rhetoricians it was not an Idea at all. ..It was reality itself, ever changing, ultimately unknowable in any kind of fixed, rigid way". ...The problem is not that he asserted intellectual values over social level values. That's a good thing according to the MOQ. But in the process, Plato also converted the dynamic quality of the sophists into a static intellectual form. That's the move that Pirsig resents and his MOQ undoes it. 

Bo replied:
No age, nor group represent DQ, it's only the static Aretê evolution, thus ZAMM tells about intellectual Aretê emergence out of social Aretê. However,...

dmb says:
But Bo, its right there is front of you. He says that "for the rhetoricians it was not an Idea at all. It was reality itself, ever changing, ultimately unknowable in any kind of fixed, rigid way". How could you possibly construe ever changing and unfixed reality itself as anything static? Isn't it obvious that he's talking about what will later be called dynamic quality? I think so. I think you'd have to disregard certain sections of Pirsig's work to maintain your theory about Pirsig's work and this one is especially crucial. This is where you kill off the mysticism and then many problems flow from that. Try it out. Suspend your SOLAQI hypothesis and just see what it looks like.

 
_________________________________________________________________
Get ideas on sharing photos from people like you.  Find new ways to share.
http://www.windowslive.com/explore/photogallery/posts?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Photo_Gallery_082008