On 4 Sep you wrote:
> The history of the pre-socratics is a bit more complex. ....
"More complex" ... true if it means that other interpretation can be arrived at,
but at this list we are supposed to take P's interpretation as the starting point
because it is firmly linked to the MOQ. This or that philosopher may have
been mentioned or left out, but we must limit ourselves. I have read your
comments on the roles that Socrates and Plato may have had and it's very
educating, but I want to go to the nucleus of our debate.
(me in the previous message):
> > You will hopefully agree (Wim did) that the said development is the
> > emergence of SOM,
> Yes. Plato, invented the subjective/objective split, and declared the
> supremacy of the objective over the subjective.
> > and in the table on page 243 Pirsig says that the new
> > "classic" age - or SOM - is identical to "intellectual reality".
> > Need I say more?
> This is the Pirsig of ZAMM, isn't it? The "idealist" Pirsig. The said
> table says that classic quality is the intellectual reality. But then,
> in Lila, Pirsig clearly states that the classic/romantic was not the
> best split. So,
I have warned against ZAMM as the book for studying the MOQ, but it is the
start of the MOQ and it can't be denied that (in the said table) the
subject/object divide is out of the "intellectual" box. That is the point, not that
the classic/romantic divide was left in the final form.
> 1) it is arguable if really the "classic quality" of ZAMM is exactly
> like the intellectual level of Lila.
OK, after the DQ/SQ was arrived at "romantic"=DQ and "classic"=SQ (more
or less) and as the latter contains the whole static range it doesn't EXACTLY
correspond to the intellectual level. That much I understand.
> Anyway, even if they are the same
> thing.... 2) I think that we can well say that the subject/object
> split of "classic quality" as depicted in the ZAMM table was not the
> best split too.
Now you are plainly obstructive.
> In short, I can agree that "classic thinking" (SOM) is intellectual.
If you hadn't it would have been sensational.
> agree it is western and that it emerges with Parmenides and Plato...
> I agree that it is the main intellectual pattern of western history.
OK that's understood, but (my thesis) that the intellectual level is SOM and
SOM alone you don't agree with.
> But I think there are better "splits".... that don't leave out of
> intellect art, mysticism, eastern thought, emotional intelligence and
> so on.... I call all that "intellect" as they all share the same basic
> purpose: to know.
After I have shown pretty convincingly that the SOM was seen as the sole
"quality" coming out of the "intellectual" box (why wasn't it drawn as one out
of many) .. which is the bone of our dispute ..you start about a better split
than the S/O! So now THAT is wrong too?
OK let's not get sidetracked. This dispute is settled. You don't agree with the
SOL-interpretation of the MOQ.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:30 BST