[MD] the sophists

[skutvik at online.no]

David M. B.

Thu. May 27. 

Bodvar to dmb:
> You skipped my points that "teaching quality itself" is plain impossible
> (for Heaven's sake DQ is indefinable and hence unteachable) except
> learning about it as the DQ/SQ dualism form, but THAT could only be
> realized after the static hierarchy was completed.

dmb says:
> Like i said already, the classroom scenes within ZAMM in particular and
> both of Pirsig's books in general show quite clearly what it looks like to
> teach DQ. 

Up to the metaphysical parts - or without them - ZAMM would just 
have been a good book, extremely good, and everyone would have 
praised RMP as a high quality writer, I repeat a good WRITER, but no-
one would have been any wiser regarding Quality in itself. Now the 
metaphysics begins almost at once, the first night on the campground. 
I had laughed at the wrench twiddlers and thought Pirsig a great 
humorist and one who cared very much for technical quality, but the 
campfire talk (on Newton) changed smiles into tears of recognition, but 
even this would not have told me anything about Quality per se. Nor 
would the classroom passages have - nowhere is it hinted to any 
Quality=Reality context only to finding oneself, not look to what 
pleases the teacher ... etc. And THIS is very much what the Sophist 
issue is about - improve one's argument, not glance to what is 
expected and accepted. Already at Plato's time the "objective" - Truth 
as the highest Good" attitude - surely had achieved "political correct 
status" and the Sophists were out to take this down a notch ... and I 
sympathize with them ... but the "teaching Quality" in any DQ sense is 
absent. It was just the Aretê connection, but Aretê was as ubiquitous in 
Greece as Quality is these days without the MOQ being any closer.             

> These are huge counter examples to your claim that Quality can't be
> taught. These example are so obvious and so large that no fancy
> argument is needed. Teaching Quality is just a matte of getting people
> to notice what they always already knew from experience.  Sorry,
> nothing personal. I just think your theory has no merit. Sadly, I think
> it actually PREVENTS people from understanding the MOQ 

These are also rhetorical tricks, you have nothing substantial to say 
but sound as if you have devastated me. Your "sorry" indicates "taking 
candy from kids" and it may impress the lesser minds, but not the 
thinkers of this site.   Conclusion teaching Quality in the DQ sense is 
only possible through the MOQ, why this PREVENTS understanding 
the MOQ is a mystery.

Bodvar