[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[X Acto]

Ron and Andre

30 Apr.

I had said :
> What does SOM and Aret? translate into in a MOQ context? What is this
> in a MOQ retrospect? 

Andre:
> This, in an MOQ context means simply that SOM was one hell of a
> pattern of intellectual value and that arete was the Quality that the
> Sophists taught ....

Bodvar:
This is much like DMB's tactics of not addressing the issue. If SOM 
was ONE intellectual patter then Aretê  was another intellectual pattern 
pressed under inside the 4th. level. No, the obvious MOQ explanation 
is that SOM was the intellectual LEVEL emerging as an instable social 
pattern "..taking off on a purpose of its own". this is after all the MOQ 
tenet of how all levels emerge from their parent.  

Ron:
No, the obviouse skutvik interpetation was that SOM is the intellectual level,
A rather ill educated and under read interpretation.

Andre:
.....  Quality, excellence, dharma, the idea of which was
> subsequently demoted, inadvertently 'encapsulated' by Plato and
> cemented in as such by Aristotle.

Bodvar
The Aretê that ZAMM gives examples of in the demi-gods of Homer's 
"Iliad" were from at least a thousand years before the Sophists and 
their courage, duty, honor, pride... etc.  are all solid social goods. 
While Protagoras' "man the measure" is easily recognized as (what 
came to the be) the SUBJECTIVE credo. And yes, Plato & Co 
definitely encapsuled the dynamic (renegade) social pattern into a new 
static form that proved to be the enormous intellectual level.      

Ron:
More nonsense.

Ron:
> Just an aside, I have to make comment on the notion that Plato and
> Aristotle are in some way responsible for SOM, they are not. 

Bodvar:

You are ... (censored)  when you start on the "learned Mr. Kulp" 
course. 

Ron:
Yea, actually reading the works of Plato and Aristotle makes me a (censored)
to you. Anything that contradicts your moronic dribble is nonsense. We get that.
How about some quotes or something from Aristotle or  Plato to support
your claim rather than the constant repetition of your cartoon like understanding
of history? I can quote Platos "Parmenides" or Aristotles book "alpha the less".
But I shant waste my time bangin on a head of rock.

> Plato exposed the good as relative and contextual 

Bodvar:
Nonsense, after Socrates had coined the first recognizable SOM  
"truth/illusion" distinction Plato went on to deem IDEAS  the true part 
while sense impressions were the illusory ones. 

Ron:
Nonsense 
Present some support for this quoting Plato or Aristotle. Rather than Parroting
your interpretation of what Pirsig wrote. I might then have some respect for your
assertion. I might even discuss it at length.But as long as you take this hard headed
static dogmatic approach, there is little to be gained.

> Aristotle that truth is the highest good and that truth  lie in the
> power of explaination and that philosophy, the practice of the love of
> wisdom, concern itself with first principles of understanding
> experience. 

Bodvar:
More nonsense, Aristotle carried the proto-som to the SUBSTANCE 
as the true part while FORMS where the shifting illusory one stage  
And ZAMM says that here the modern scientific root is revealed.  

Ron:
I like how you are so dogmatic about those things Pirsig says
that you feel agree with your interpetation yet out right call him nutts
in regard to the stuff that does not fit with it. That should be a sign
that you do not get it. But to a rock headed simpleton what can one expect.

> SOM may be traced from the Pathagoreans neo Pathagoreans
> and the neo Platonists they encapsulated the good and truth, made them
> static absolute and universal. 

Bodvar:

Patha ... is that what us mortals know as Pythagoreans? Yes, they 
surely were part of the SOM process  

Ron:
Gee, ya think?
Written and spelled out twice , fine example of your feeble grasp of the situation
if by mortals you mean morons.

Never a pleasure Bodvar