[MD] Some historical perspective

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Marsha 

23 Oct. u wrote to Ian:
> It seems obvious to me that intellectual patterns establish a self
> and an object for consideration/manipulation.  I haven't found an
> intellectual pattern yet that doesn't bifurcate in such a manner.  

You are spot on, THIS is MOQ's intellectual level: The aggregate of a
subject-self peering out on an objective world, while SOM's
"intellect"  is the self' and its ability to think (or manipulate
symbols) and regrettably most discussers aren't able to see how the
MOQ is drawn back into the SOM by not observing this crucial 
difference.    

> As far as evaluating the merits of various patterns, once the nature
> of all patterns is understood, how much actual difference does it
> make?  And why? Leave those squabbling and soar with Johnathan.  Or
> in my case, soar with Ludwig. Isn't the idea to lift human
> understanding, not just to decide whether to have pancakes or
> democrats?  

The static level's are most important. See how decisive one's take of
intellect is.

                                   ---------------

> It may be a blind alley, but I will need to find out for myself.

Understood!

> Yes I agree that arête was well represented in the Iliad and the
> Odyssey centuries before.  Ugo Zilioli will be contrasting
> relativism against_ subjectivism and emotivism, which is how Plato
> defined what Protagoras was teaching.  

A bit complicated this, "Relativism" in our modern scientific - 
"Einsteinian" - sense does not really postulate that "man is the 
measure" rather that (objective) reality is relative. Zilioli is
right in distinguishing between relativism and subjectivity. But at the 
Plato-Protagoras time SOM was millenniums short of the modern 
scientific stage, Plato simply hated  the Sophists for jeopardizing the
new-fangled notion of TRUTH.        

> Well, we know Plato cannot be trusted. Plato's Theaetetus and
> Protagoras will be the vehicle of exploration. Besides, it seems to
> me, that Phaedrus identified with the Sophists in opposition to
> Plato.

Yes in ZAMM he identified the Sophists' effort with his own, but all 
Greeks of those age claimed to represent Aretê (this I have from 
another source) The "social aretê" is that of the Homeric texts, the 
Sophists were deep into "intellectual aretê" defending its (yet to 
come) "S" part.   
 
> He saw something beyond the standard interpretations.

He  did, but why, oh why, did Pirsig refuse to "translate" ZAMM in the 
light of the MOQ thereby leaving us with one Quality as the real thing 
and then the quality of the MOQ as some secondhand imperfect 
article with Static Quality even lesser value -  "mere concepts" as you 
harp on.      

>  Now I want to see what I can see. There's also a book by Joseph
> Margolis, 'The Truth About Relativism' that I will try to get. -  Why
> cannot arête be a timeless, quality term?  

Quality is timeless, only it has a temporary static side to it and this is 
no "mere" but our world.  

> What should I paint?  I need a model; come sit for me.

You once spoke of walking the beaches somewhere. Do a "portrait of 
the artist as a beach-comber" (smiley). 

Bodvar