[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[skutvik at online.no]

Hello Andre 

6 Aug.  you spoke

> Thank you for explaining to me you responses to Ian. They are muchly
> appreciated. I have more thoughts and questions and I hope you will
> indulge a dud. 

First, thanks for not taking my remonstrating too seriously. I have 
read it all and the gist is that Quality "hibernated" while SOM ruled 
and just re-emerged with the MOQ, thus (my) Newton example 
(where Quality were before Pirsig) does not apply (in your opinion).. 

MOQ's existence is the DQ/SQ "aggregate", consequently the Greek 
part of ZAMM must have been either a new level emerging or an 
evolution inside a level. The orthodox camp  (Ant, DMB & Co) 
subscribes to this view - all took place within intellect - while the SOL 
says that it was intellect emerging from society.  I hope you will find 
your place because there are just these two alternatives.   

If MOQ's re-installation of Aretê and its ousting of SOM (that in its 
time had ousted Aretê) takes place inside intellect then this level must 
be the only level there is and the social-, biological- and inorganic 
"levels" are mere intellectual patterns. This means back to SOM's 
subjective (idealist) camp and nothing is gained. 

As mentioned the SOL says that the ZAMM's SOM was intellectual 
quality emerging from social quality, but then the question arises 
where were the "Metaphysics of Aretê" before Pirsig. Do you see? 
Even if the Sophists is seen as defending Aretê, they just defended 
social aretê. That's the very point, the respective static levels are the 
trees of quality, the "forest of quality"can only be seen from the MOQ. 

Finally your final paragraph:

> Anyway Bodvar, I hope this has thrown up some responses. I agree with
> your S/O dominated stuff but do not agree that we are forever
> condemned to swallow S/O food. It is not a closed shop. If it is we
> are operating at a different level of consciousness...alternating
> between the intellectual level and all others.
       
I merely give "unto Caesar what Caesar's is" by placing S/O in the 
position as the highest static good, the greater Q-context dissolves 
SOM's paradoxes. Maybe this is what you say by  ".. operating at 
different levels of consciousness" In my lingo "our focus shifting 
between the levels".  

Yours sincerely

Bodvar 
































> For you the 4th level IS the S/O aggregate. As Phaedrus argued;
> rationality, reason, the Church of Reason dominated by Aristotelian
> S/O dialectics, leading invariably to S/O divisions...i.e the
> employment of the dialectical method leading to these divisions!

 

> Phaedrus states on p 374 (ZMM) that when Aristotle concluded that
> substances dominate all, to which appearances (qualities as
> adjectives) cling our 'SCIENTIFIC understanding of reality was born'.
> He goes on to say that the Good was reduced to a relatively minor
> branche of knowledge called ethics...Arete is dead...'.

   

> Bodvar, I do not for one second believe that its death did not leave
> ghosts. Its ghosts did wonder through the ages. How else can we make
> sense of the characters of Sylvia and John? This, as Phaedrus calls it
> 'romantic' understanding. It has stayed alive and well throughout the
> ages and has resulted in many a conflict between 'authority' and
> intellectuals and the common people. The dominant reasoning, the
> dominant rationality, they felt (without being able to identify what)
> had something missing. Phaedrus gave a name to symbolise this missing
> piece: Quality/ morality. 

      

> And now I want to suggest something else on this forum related to
> this. You ask (and have asked before and have answered it) where was
> quality before Pirsig (MoQ). I state now, and this get me way off the
> mark, that Quality cannot be treated in the same way as Newton's Law of
> Gravity...which did not exist before Newton. Phaedrus RE-DISCOVERED
> Quality. Nobody had conveniently covered up the Law of Gravity before
> Newton and hid it (to suggest another interpretation of apples falling
> down). This was the case with Arete, which Phaedrus identifies with
> Quality. 
 
> P371, 'Lightning hits', 'He's  been doing it right all along'.  A
> confirmation...it's one of the oldest concepts in human
> consciousness...now rediscovered ( thank goodness). 
 
> It was part of the mental activity of the Sophists (before a
> scientific understanding to attain truth was born). To teach arete as
> a form of the highest social good ( our present day celebrity stuff I
> suppose... but not quite...a combination of the narrator's version as
> well...to do the right thing with the heart, head and hands p291).And
> it remaind a social good despite being made subservient to Truth ( an
> intellectual good).

> Thus Truth became an Intellectual PoV and to arrive at this Truth one
> needed to follow the dialectical method: Aristotle's
> esthetics/definitions/logic/forms/substances/ rhetoric/ laughter and
> more laughter p376.
 
> But are these hard-wired in our brains Bodvar? You seem to imply so.
> Intellect is it and intellectualising is so dominated by it that it
> cannot get away from underneath it. Is the (intellectual) level hard-
> wired or is it simply learned behaviour...you know, the stuff that
> happens at schools and colleges (which show more and more drop-outs).
 
> >From where comes the MoQ? Surely this comes from the intellectual
> >level in
> combination with non- intellectual 'tools' to arrive at Quality!
 
> P233:...feelings of quality...it sounded warm...warmer...hot. All
> levels are included and, imho gelling them together at the Code of
> Art...a complete intuitive integration of all.
 
> It is designated as a static PoV by Pirsig, which you condemn because
> the quality aspect then has disappeared ( if I am wrong in my reading
> please say so) because Quality is a non-intellectual event! It is a
> dynamic event and the MoQ as discussed on this MD is from a static
> point of view. There are two ways of 'experiencing the MoQ. The static
> and the dynamic way. (see Anthony's PhD).
 
> Anyway Bodvar, I hope this has thrown up some responses. I agree with
> your S/O dominated stuff but do not agree that we are forever
> condemned to swallow S/O food. It is not a closed shop. If it is we
> are operating at a different level of consciousness...alternating
> between the intellectual level and all others.






> 
> For what it is worth.
> Andre
> 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/
> 
> 
>