[MD] Plato's Good vs. Pirsig's Quality

[John Carl]

Greetings Andre,

Andre quotes Northrop:
>
> 'In Plato's philosophy there are two 'ground principles'' as his famous
> lecture 'On the Good' specifically stated: one, the rational,
> mathematical,formal principle; the other, the intuitive, immediately
> apprehended, emotional, aesthetic principle termed 'the indeterminate
> dyad',
> or the potentially differentiable aesthetic continuum.



Now right there that seems an excellent description Phaedrus's
classic/romantic split, does it not?

I was always curious about the term "romantic" in ZMM.  Romantic has all
kinds of connotations for our modern culture that cloud my philosophical
understanding.  But this description makes very clear a sort of sexual
distinction in human consciousness.


>  ...In his dialogue the Timaeus, which brings
> together the aesthetic, emotional, 'eros' principle of the Phaedrus and
> Symposium and the rational, scientific logos principle of the Republic, he
> tells us that the former is the female and the latter the male principle in
> the nature of things...Failing to make an important distinction, Plato went
> on quite arbitralily to brand the aesthetic, emotional female principle as
> evil and the male rational principle as good' (p 58-9).


Interesting indeed!



It still interests me as to the reasons why Plato 'encapsulated' this

> female, (Good)  principle (ZMM p373) and associated the male, (Logos)
> principle with Truth. Was this because the rational, scientifically viable
> idea of the good was revealed through the investigations in the natural
> sciences ...'and made articulate in the resultant empirically verified
> philosophical theory of nature'? In other words, was the male principle
> easier to 'understand' than the female principle?
>

It was for Plato!  He was male.  Which is the point you're making I think.
 I'm not a Greek scholar, but I've read before that there was a strong
component of the anti-feminine in Greek culture.

In reading Josiah Royce and what came to me in comparing his philosophy with
Pirsig's was that in the classic/romantic split, Phaedrus, was actually
oriented romantically.  I didn't get that right off because he was so
technically proficient.  But  If this was so, then it goes a long way toward
explaining his conflict with Plato and classical philosophy which denigrates
romantic sensibilities.

Could ZMM be primarily a redemption of the feminine in intellect?  How VERY
PC. :)

It seems rather that we are now in an era of scientific discovery which has
> confronted us with philosophical/ metaphysical questions and explanations
> that seem inadequate to meet precisely the result of these discoveries. In
> this sense it seems that the shortcomings of the intellectual level is
> partly due to its inability to fully grasp its own grand-parent
> level i.e in/organic patterns of value.


Yes!  That makes sense.  Our most fundamental Organic pattern of value is
the male/female experience and any intellectual system which  denigrates the
female side of things, throws away one half the human intellectual
experience.


I find it interesting to note that Plato has thus a two principled idea of

> the 'Good' and that he labels the 'aesthetic' as the 'female principle' and
> demotes it in relation to the male principle. I still do not understand why
> this was done (translated into various religious/ social/ economic PoV's).
> Was Plato influenced by Eastern philosophy or philosophers? (still Eastern
> philosophy has incorporated the female principle (e.g Yin/Yang).
>
> I hope this is a little coherent and that my questions are clear.
>

Yes and yes.  You bring up (for me anyway), some fascinating points I'd
never considered before.

Thanks.

John