[MD] Aristotle and the MOQ

[John Carl]

Oh piffle, Bo.

You do keep on building upon unexamined presuppositions of dubious quality:

>
> 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 fact that Pirsig didn't examine the Bible very deeply either shouldn't
let YOU off the hook for doing the same.

There's nothing to support your idea about "Javeh BEING Reality" in the
Bible.

That  idea is  a more Eastern interpretation of deity, anyway.   The Bible
puts forth the idea of "heaven above and man below".

And I'd say you'd never have heard of Aristotle or Plato except Christian
Monks cared deeply enough about textual translation, preservation and
understanding and I'd put forth the evidence that they DID care and
understand the Greeks because the Greeks so coincided with the religious
mind of the times, influenced and created by the bible - a spirit conducive
to intellectual inquiry in the spirit of the Pauline "I die daily".

So calling that aspect of man's understandings "social" while we're all
intellectuals seems just a denigration driven by axe grinding, to me.

Tell me how the following passages obviate Subject Object thinking:


"Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge?

 Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer
Me.

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?

Tell Me, if you have understanding.  Who determined its measurements?

Surely you know!

Or who stretched the line upon it?

To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone,

When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for
joy?"


I mean that whole passage in Job captures neatly the entire intellectual
problem of defining an age of the universe, or a limit to space.  And in
Socratic form, as well.

Calling it "non-intellectual" seems completely ridiculous to me.  How is it
not Subject and Object based?

>
> 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.


More piffle.  Plato  didn't invent intellectualism anymore than Pirsig
invented Quality.

  He explicated convincingly the zeitgeist of his times-those patterns which
had been in play long before he came along and was good enough to land an
agent and a publisher.


> 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
>

Right Bo.  Nothin less intellectual than a Jew.

Piffle indeed.

Kind regards, all the same,

John