[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[skutvik at online.no]

Hello Andre.

12 Aug.:

I had said:

> > 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). 

The latter definitely, only that the ZAMM diagram does not have any 
social level, in that book what became social was QUALITY itself - the 
lost paradise that SOM ousted existence from. Phew, the translation 
from ZMM is exhausting. See below.

> OK: no1: does the 'orthodox' camp subscribe to the view that this 
> 'classic quality' arose out of intellect? 

In ZAMM's proto-moq Quality was split Romantic/ Classic, and it's not 
difficult to see the DQ/SQ in this. But the diagram is misleading in the 
sense of there being no "Quality" left after a metaphysical split. 
Romantic is the dynamic aspect from which the Classic emanated.  

But in the final MOQ DQ has spawned 4 static levels and the crucial 
point is that the intellectual level should have remained the S/O split. 
Now, ZAMM must necessarily be interpreted in MOQ's light and the 
orthodox see SOM as a faulty intellectual pattern taking over from the 
Aretê which must be some good intellectual pattern. This is absurd, it 
leaves everything "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).

You are right. ZAMM is about the intellectual level emerging out of
the social - Classic out of the Romantic - "taking leave of its romantic 
origins" -  Truth parting company with Good - because P. regarded
social good as the paradise lost. 

> 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.

Definitely, it's just untenable

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!)

It's the Aretê as Quality itself in ZAMM,  compared to ...as social
quality in LILA I hint to. I mean what good is social quality without
any knowledge of the overall Quality context? 

Bodvar