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

[John Carl]

>
> t I find it
>
very unsatisfactory to hear that 'Plato's denigration of the feminine was
> due to repression of his own sexuality or of a crystalization of what was
> already happening on a large scale' .
>
> He was a philosopher for goodness sake!




I know what you mean!  It's like after all that  "know thyself",   he
didn't?   What's up with that?  Just goes to show you, Pirsigian rule #321;
we often preach the hardest what we doubt the most.


But, in Pirsig's words ' Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies or perhaps
> boys and writing metaphysics is a part of life'. So, to let your preference
> for boys instead of bar-ladies dictate your philosophy is hardly an excuse
> for undermining a solid case for 'good' and even if your preference is for
> bar-ladies...why let this influence your philosophy?
>


It's an interesting question indeed.  I really haven't had much discussion
or insight into Plato's homosexuality.  Heck, the first I ever heard of it
was in a tv commercial for a show called "Soap"  There was a character in
the comedy, played by Billy Crystal, now that I think of it, who was gay and
defending himself with the line, "Plato was gay".  The punchline, which I
thought was funny for what it revealed about intellectual discourse in
america,  was,  "Mickey Mouse's dog was GAY?!"

It didn't seem outrageous to me or ruin my reverence for the intellectual
achievements of the Greeks. Nor was I that curious to investigate further.
But now that you've brought it up,  it sure is an interesting idea that the
sexual orientation of one philosopher could change the course of history -
and remain an unexamined subject.


 Was it a period of the biological PoV's  being so enmeshed with social

> POV's  that the former was still dominant... i.e the (struggling)  mental/
> social PoV dominated by the biological/sexual PoV? This hardly seems
> possible since Pirsig suggests that it is within this time-span intellect
> at
> last freed itself from society. ( to be clear Pirsig argues this. I am not
> convinced that this [clear]  break has taken place ...yet...  hence my
> apprehension).
>
> Is Pirsig correct about his analysis? (Personally I suggest not)



What pops into my mind, is what an incredibly war-mongering and competitive
bunch those Greeks were. I mean, they invented the Olympics for
crissakes.  They used rationality and logic to all kinds of socially
competitive ends, so on the face of it, they  would appreciate the tools of
intellect, not for their own truth, but to dominate other societies mired in
outmoded, statically  superstitious  cosmologies.

I just had a thought.  Socrates drinking the poison was an immoral act on
HIS part.  He should have preserved his intellect over the needs his of
society's functioning.     But Socrates, a man of his time, cared more for
society than he did his own biological function or ongoing intellectual
function.  He put society first.



> dmb:
> You could say intellect was born in this context, when mastery and control
> were the dominant cultural values.
>
> Andre:
> And this is what I am questioning David...mastery and control of whom? Was
> it mastery of social 'over' biological?
>


It could only be mastery over other tribes.  The most simply understood and
relatable impulse in the human psyche.  Heck, you even see it on display in
online discussion groups!


>
> Plato has shown that he was sensitive to this influence, this part of
> reality. Was he confused about his own reaction to DQ?
> Of course we can only surmise, but, given the  cultural cristalisation to
> which you are referring, could it be possible that Plato followed SQ, that
> which was safe (socially) [an immoral stance for a philosopher!!] thereby
> denying the DQ (female) principle because HE felt uncomfortable with this
> part of reality? ( I am not suggesting that all of DQ is female, I am only
> trying to make my point within this context).
>

Well if my thesis is anywhere close, there is a strong reason for
denigration of the feminine.  Women are not very good at war.  They  don't
play chess, they usually don't play army and they punch like girls.  It's
not just a human thing, in Nature we almost always see the males fighting
over the females rather than the other way 'round .  Human females are more
vulnerable in gestation and childrearing than any other animal I can think
of, so it gets exaggerated in human culture, rather than minimized.

But if this is true, it does point to an immorality within reason itself -
for human culture to be sane, it must contain masculine and feminine
thinking at every level including the intellectual.  Associating  the
feminine with 'evil', just because it helps you conquer more tribes?  Bad
Plato.  Naughty, naughty.