[MD] Logos is not ergon

[John Carl]

Great stuff, Ron, Andre,
How logos and ergon have been playing in my head this morning is in
something I came upon by accident a while ago, that still arises often in my
thinking - that quality is definable in experience.  You can't define it
dialectically, but you can define it experientially.  That this aspect of Q,
the part that Pirsig describes in ZMM with his classroom community in
unison:  You can't define Quality, but you know what it is.  (Oh no I don't,
Oh yes you do, he just proved it)

And I'd say a big part of this knowing, is in the attempt to express the DQ
in any experience.  That communal expression.   When you express it, I hear
it, and compare it to MY apprehension of DQ and subtract the differences in
context and viola - the knowledge of pure dynamic Quality arises in both of
us.

A Sum much bigger than its parts - for it grows infinitely, and thus is not
prone to mathematical enclosures.  (Sorry Joe)

John indulging in a quickie...

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:55 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> Andre,
> Excellent, I tend to believe this is exactly why Aristotle created systems
> of meaning, because virtue was erroding. He set meaning, universally in
> concrete by creating axioms of meaning. A collection of universal base
> assumptions everyone agreed with and none could deny as "fact".
> Concrete meaning wich could not be
> twisted or interpreted.
> He was attempting to save Logos as ergon by seperating it from virtue.
> He saw virtue as a value that depended on the ethics and honor of the
> individual. Thus the separation of good from truth.
>
> We can still see this split, religeon still sees goodness as truth and
> light.
> Science sees truth as not always being good, often truth can be bad and
> dark.
> Therefore truth is seperate from goodness. Truth then is a kind of
> objective
> value where goodness is a subjective value open to interpretaion.
> Aristotle demonstrated that truth stands seperate from good in meaning.
> MEANING it all boils down to meaning. Which is another way of saying value.
>
> First philosophy, became a given. an axiom itself. a cornerstone layed and
> forgotton
> It's meaning and the understanding of it's function lost.
>
> Aristotle fused logos and ergon and called it truth.
>
> When the word "I" was fused with the "action" or "deed" of being,
> the self became concrete and fact, defined as a unit seperate and distinct
> from
> the virtues and values of society.
>
> The baby thrown out with the bathwater was wisdom. The wisdom to understand
> the use of and the difference between goodness and truth. The socratic play
> of dialectic between them for a deeper and broader understanding of be-ing
> the awareness of their value.
>
> The desire of meaning is the root of suffering. when virtue is lost, laws
> appear.
> when goodness is lost, truth appears, when all know beauty to be
> "beautiful"
> ugliness appears.
>
> Is inquirey desire? or is it understanding
> Is understanding desire? or is it wonder
> Is wonder desire? or is it the awareness of be-ing
>
> Is to be, to desire? or is it simply to "be"
>
> when we simply be, does desire satiate itself?
> is preferance natural? exclusion un-natural?
> preference as it arises, acceptance as it comes
>
> Is this dynamic virtue?
>
> the wisdom of wonder and inquirey?
>
> the value of meaning?
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>