[MD] Plato's Good

[118]

Tuukka,
With due respect, nothing can be encapsulated into a definition.  We
create definitions to discuss something.  They do not encapsulate
anything except a mode for conversation.  The words are not the real
thing.  Words are simply words.  If I speak of a dog, and you
understand what I am talking about, great.  But this does not mean
that your notion of a dog (based on all your interactions with such a
thing) is the same as mine.  We simply accept some vague dog notion so
that we can talk about it.  I am not destroying my sense of dog by
giving it a definition.  My sense of dog is much more vast and complex
than a simple definition.  If we were afraid to define things, we
would have nothing to talk about in this forum.


I am not sure why Quality is special here.  If I speak of Quality and
you understand what I am talking about, all we have is an agreement in
the usage of that word.  Any agreement requires objectification
through definition, otherwise we could not agree.  If we fear uttering
the word “Quality” then what does one do?

There is no destruction of Arête going on, unless one confuses the
words for what they represent.  This is basic MoQ.  With that
knowledge, we can move forward and discover new modes of presentation.
 We have the key to the cage, so we will never be trapped by
definitions.  It is like the philosopher's stone.  All this fear of
definitions simply means that many are still living in the cave
fretting about shadows.  Yes, words are shadows, definitions are
shadows.  Surely you have read Plato's analogy.  Why should anybody be
afraid of shadows when they can walk outside in the sun?

This fear of definitions is exactly the same as the fear of idols.  It
is exactly the fear of naming the name of God (or the Devil).  This
fear is from the dark ages, where one had to follow the rules of the
church or be sent to hell.

Nothing is destroyed by describing Quality, because we know that such
a description does not Quality make.  We know that; we are free from
the binding spell of definitions.

At least some of us are.

Cheers,
Mark

ps.  Plato was a big fan of Arete.  Read up on it.

On 5/8/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark, Ant
>
> Ant is right. Quality cannot be encapsulated into a definition. Chapter
> 29 of ZAMM:
>
> "Why destroy areté? And no sooner had he asked the question than the
> answer came to him. Plato hadn't tried to destroy areté. He had
> encapsulated it; made a permanent, fixed Idea out of it; had converted
> it to a rigid, immobile Immortal Truth. He made areté the Good, the
> highest form, the highest Idea of all. It was subordinate only to Truth
> itself, in a synthesis of all that had gone before."
>
> Plato didn't try to destroy areté, but did so by accident.
>
> Best regards,
> Tuukka
>
>
>
>> Mark Smit stated May 7th 2012:
>>
>> Ant, tell me what the problem with Plato was.  His "Good"
>> is the same thing as Pirsig's Quality.
>>
>>
>> Ant McWatt comments:
>>
>> Well Mark,
>>
>> Not according to Pirsig they're not.  I don't know whether you really
>> believe this statement of yours or just haven't read the material in
>> question            but (to paraphrase) Pirsig states that his Quality is
>> fundamentally Dynamic and indefinable while Plato's Good is a static Form
>> that (supposedly) can be defined.  Plato's "Republic" refers to the Good
>> in a couple of places and what he says here does tend to support Pirsig's
>> view.  In my honest opinion.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ant
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>
> 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
>