[MD] Aristotle and the MOQ

[skutvik at online.no]

Marsha, Ron, All.

17 July:

Marsha to Ron
> I cannot comment about Aristotle's definition of metaphysics; that is
> true, and I didn't comment on Aristotle's definition of anything, but
> offered a simple, modern definition: met·a·phys·ics  -  Philosophy 
> The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality.  

I don't know what's Ron's point, isn't Aristotle's  "metaphysics" about 
examination of reality? Anyway my point is that only with the Greeks, 
with SOM, did the dichotomy of an examining SUBJECT and an 
OBJECTIVE reality (to be examined) occur. And - further - as Pirsig 
points to - the old books of the Bible lacks intellectual content, 
meaning hat they lacks the said  Aristotelian dichotomy of a reality and 
an examinator. Javeh was reality and mankind was part of that reality. 
The same goes for all ancient texts, Homer's "Iliad" for instance, not a 
trace of a subject who steps back from any reality, who reflects ...etc. 
All is enormous emotions, and sound and fury.Conclusion. Pirsig says 
that the intellectual level = SOM  and everything points to him being 
right. And one point more, my assertion about Christendom being 
intellect-influenced and Judaism and Islam pure social . The former is 
full of "rationalizing" of God - to try to prove His existence - these 
things are lacking totally in the latter two.

Bodvar