[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[Andre Broersen]

Hi Bodvar, you say:

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.

Andre:
By 'the Greek part of ZAMM' you mean 'arete' ? (which, my understanding
says, was/is a social pattern of value, dharma, duty to oneself...held
against the endless landscape from which the 'proverbial' sand is taken).

Or, do you mean the emergence, from the social level of , what Pirsig calls
(in his diagram on p243) classic quality (intellectual reality).

OK: no1: does the 'orthodox' camp subscribe to the view that this 'classic
quality' arose out of intellect? This, if it is true, cannot be so as Pirsig
clearly states that, under Parmenides the classic mind took leave of its
romantic origins (pre-intellectual reality). The True and the Good are not
necessarily the same.
Under Aristotle, the knife continued as 'substance' was carved out to which
appearances cling (surface[subject/object] reality) and 'at that moment, and
not until that moment, our modern scientific understanding of reality ( your
SOL I suppose?) was born' (p 374).

And the romantic understanding was used to syrup-over the real, harsh
realities of Truth, to make it (socially) palatable (mannerisms and forms,
Aristotelian forms,p375).

I mean, if 'all took place within intellect' then we have an
idealist/subjectivist problem don't we? Or am I way off the mark here.

Bodvar:
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 Aret?" before Pirsig

Andre:
Never heard of it. (Churchianity?Pfhhhhhhhh!)

Bodvar:
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".

Andre:
See my earlier sent post to you and John and Platt and All.
It may well be advantageous to have the S/O method to provide us the basis
for deeper understanding. As paradoxes invariably force us to go to a deeper
level of understanding to find their complementarity and not their
(apparent/seeming) opposition.
This is what I mean by your 'greater quality context'. As Pirsig says on p76
of ZMM: " Such an understanding will not reject sand-sorting or
contemplation of unsorted sand for its own sake. Such an understanding will
instead seek to direct attention to the endless landscape (DQ) from which
the sand(SQ) is taken. That is what Phaedrus, the poor surgeon, was trying
to do'. (my additions)


Thanks Bodvar,
All for now
Andre.