[MD] Ideas and Gods

[Bennett Jon]

Sorry Horse,

I hit send prematurely. I was saying the classical wv was based on the
concepts of changelessness and the eternal. Both of these concepts that show
up in science and philosophy have theological roots. Do you disagree with
that? I think it is fairly obvious.

Another point is that these root ideas of change and eternity are related to
many more root ideas that I have yet to discuss. Some are the
individual,(the indivisible), which is the greek translation of atomos.
Small wonder that the atomic theory, the corpuscular theory of matter
dominates this age. But there are several more inter-related ideas, or roots
of the metaphysics of the classical age. That's what I've been trying to
analyse. All are derived from theology and all are expressed throughout the
whole of the culture, since they are root ideas.

The Romantic age was characterized by dynamic change. Here we see change and
becoming as primary. Reality is now fluid not static, we are in the realm of
the DQ. I believe DQ is a species of metaphysics of Romanticism, and doesn't
transcend it.

Again moq absolutizes the change component. DQ is the real story, sq is a
smaller player. Do you disagree with this?

The classical view explained change in terms of the changeless-absolutizing
the changeless! The Romantic view explains the changeless in terms of
change-absolutizing Change!

Moq likewise absolutizes Change and doesn't transcend these two systems or
in any way resolve them. Although, there are unique aspects to moq it bears
the family resemblance to its family of origin-romanticism. It is a species
of a known genus.

There is also a clear link between the romantic movement and German
idealism. The post I sent last details the connection of German idealism
with theology, as most of the key German philosophers were trained
theologians and intentionally carried over theological themes in their
philosophy.

So it should be obvious that the theological themes are relevant to
understanding Romanticism, and the Classical age, and hence moq.  If you've
ever studied Newton's theology and its relation to the development of modern
science you will see the obvious connection to classicism.

So everything I've discussed are issues raised by Pirsig, or issues related
to those raised by Pirsig. I just form my opinions on multiple sources and
don't take everything he says as gospel.

So tell me what you think of the root ideas of these two metaphysical
systems which moq is said to transcend. And what do you think are the root
ideas of moq?

You really see this change over with in the early to mid 19th century with
the discovery of the non-euclidian ideas.

And what archetype was challenged by these discoveries? Answering this is a
key to understanding both ages.

Jon




On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Bennett Jon <jonjbenn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Horse,
>
> Why don't you respond to my statements about moq or Pirsig, of which I have
> made many, instead of lecturing me, analyzing me, or talking down with a
> self-righteous attitude. Perhaps this shift in your personal paradigm might
> give you a clue of what I'm saying and why it is relevant.
>
> I have the right and ability to define for myself how to participate in
> this list, thank you very much.
>
> Let's start simply, if you are truly interested in discussion.
>
> Pirsig clearly thinks we have changed from one age to another, and are in
> need of a new metaphysics. He describes the root ideas of a metaphysical
> world view and why they need to change, and what they need to change too.
>
> I have been describing just that, if you have been paying attention. I am
> intrested, as Pirsig, in these two ages, and the metaphysical roots of each
> age. When I make general statements, I have been accused of making dogmatic
> statements, so I've been presenting other sources relevant to the
> discussion, and I will make an arguement using those sources.
>
> Pirsig speaks of a classical view and a romantic view and claims that moq
> transcends both. I disagree. I didn't realize that agreement with Pirsig's
> every word was a requisite for discussing his ideas.
>
> How do you describe the classical or romantic world views, and why do you
> think moq transcends them?
>
> Here is why I disagree. The classical view was based on the ideas of the
> changeless. Do you agree so far? In fact, it was based on the idea of
> Absolute changelessness. All change was explained in terms of the
> Changeless. The Eternal was more important than the temporal to the
> classical, enlightenment world view.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
>
>> Jon
>> This mailing list is to do with the MoQ and so far I've seen very little
>> evidence that you want to discuss this or have even read the books.
>> Please at least make the effort to join in with what is the primary
>> purpose of this forum - moq_discuss, there's a clue in the title for you!
>>
>> Horse
>>
>> On 01/05/2010 05:56, Bennett Jon wrote:
>>
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>>
>> <Snip> - a very long post with little to do with the MoQ!
>>
>> --
>>
>> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
>> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
>> — Frank Zappa
>>
>>
>> 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/md/archives.html
>>
>
>