[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Mon Aug 10 05:24:25 PDT 2009 


-----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: Monday, August 10, 2009 5:37 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

Good morning Marsha

9 Aug. you spoke:

> Marsha: 
> 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.  


Bo:
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.

Marsha:
The Sophists were labeled by Plato and Aristotle as irrational and were
banished from the intellectual scene.  They seem to have been relativists,
and that took on a pejorative connotation too.  (I am a Sophist, a
Relativist and proud!!! (Conventionally, of course.)) 

     
> Marsha: 
> 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!

Bo:
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?


Jeez, I am sometimes so exhausted that I would like kill the Buddha. -
Okay, the word 'mystical' has been denigrated into the ground, and is
unusable.  Personally, I don't like child/adult either.  Surely not American
Pragmatist, or Radical Empiricist. But I do get your point, the MoQ
represents a creative worldview that is above and beyond the Intellectual
(s/o) Level, and sees all levels below it as levels of static patterns while
at the same time participating with full awareness in dynamic experience. -
I see something else too, but it's still not clear.' Imho. 


Marsha  








      




 
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 



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/

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list