[MD] the sophists

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ham

17 May:

Bo before:
> > Thanks Ham I really appreciated this. ... Now Arlo, DMB (maybe Andre if
> > he understands what this means) see who is your ally now. 

Ham:
> I'm always pleased when something I say touches a common cord with a
> correspondent, whoever it is.  Likewise, it's gratifying to read a
> statement that reflects my own position on an issue, whether it's
> philosophy or politics.  More acknowledgement of understanding (when
> merited) and less condemnation for failing to understand would make
> these discussions more productive, in my opinion.

Ouch, this is difficult, I meant that Arlo & Co's interpretation of ZAMM's 
Greek part make them bedfellows of Ham. My interpretation however 
stays away from that company.;-)  I thanked you for pointing this out so 
clearly but if  they will understand ...? Andre started barking at once. 

> That said, by agreeing with a particular statement I am not lending my
> endorsement to its author's overall conception.  We are all dealing
> here with what, in my opinion, is an unnecessarily complex reality
> theory.  I see you waging a largely semantic battle over a metaphoric
> hierarchy which purports to replace diversity with an elaborate scheme
> of levels and patterns.  Inasmuch as the Pirsigian language is not
> well defined, much less understood, I would encourage you to back away
> from the MoQ long enough to present your concept in common terms,
> rather than struggle to strictly fit it to the "official paradigm."

What you say goes for Q orthodoxy, the true MOQ represents 
something that may be compared to the Copernican Cosmology 
versus the Ptolemaian one 

> I am still stuggling to get across two basic concepts here.  One is
> the idea that experience, perception, and cognizance are all facets of
> subjective awareness, whereas value, being, and difference belong to a
> cosmic order which lies outside this "mental compartment".  Together,
> these two contingencies represent the provisional mode of reality we
> (as its active agents) call existence.

No, struggle needed dear Ham, I understand you position perfectly, 
one must be retarded NOT to have the  "awareness/what one is aware 
of" dualism as one's starting point - this is SOM and the necessary last 
camp 4 before the dash to the summit. The point is that SOM does not 
give us peace, it demand a search for something else which is the 
source of the S/O (the said summit that beckons up there). I guess 
you have found it in the Essence and Pirsig in Dynamic Quality,  then - 
and this is the stroke of genius - the static fall-outs of "X" and the 
crowning point that the last and topmost static camp is the S/O where 
we people of the 21st Western World started from ! This leaves us 
with a perfectly  closed circle which has given me great peace by 
satisfying my sense of harmony and beauty. .  

> The second concept is that existence is a creation in process (i.e,
> evolutionary), whereas the primary source is uncreated and immutable.
> One of the reasons these concepts have fallen on deaf ears is that Mr.
> Pirsig has made a "metaphysics" of existence (SOM) which invalidates
> the need for a creator or primary source. 

Yes, but SOM is just a "camp" on the way to the top from where the 
view is limited. 

> Again, as a valuist, I applaud the "quality" emphasis of the MoQ, but,
> as an essentialist, I cannot subscribe to a worldview in which Quality
> is posited as the agent of reality. 

I'm no Q  fundamentalist, but it is very GOOD and serves well, 
however a Dynamic Essence and static essential levels - the last of 
which is the "subject's awareness/objects of awareness" - would have 
been fine.  

> Of course, this is not your battle, Bo.  Indeed, you may disagree with
> my ontology.  Nevertheless, there are points on which we are in
> accord, and it is at these intersections that progress may be
> possible.

Thank you Ham, at least for your excellent posts, the thirties was a 
great class. :-) 

Bodvar