[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

Mon Aug 10 02:37:06 PDT 2009

Good morning Marsha

9 Aug. you spoke:

> It is my understanding that before Plato/Aristotle there was no
> rational/irrational divide, and it is that divide that initiated the
> creation of the SOM.  

That's a correct understanding IMO, and I hope you also understand 
the S/O division and all its off-shoots ("rational/irrational" one of 
those) to be MOQ's intellectual level. This divide is an enormous 
value, what brought us modernity, but looked so "god-forsaken" in its 
SOM role. Besides, it brings intellect down to the static range where it 
belongs for the MOQ to have any explanatory power.

> So I am seeing the difference between the arête&etc. of the early
> sophists and the arête&etc. of the MoQ like the difference between the
> infants experience of direct experience and the mystics experience of
> direct experience.  BIG difference!

All static levels are experience of the respective level's value, while 
the MOQ is the "experience" of the value context itself. However, if 
this is mystical? Why not child/adult?

Bodvar

> 
> Marsha  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
> skutvik at online.no
> Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 2:28 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Philosophy and Philosophology
> 
> 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/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 