what I remember from the Dutch book is that 'knowledge' in ancient
Greek is "Sunesis" which means s.t. like 'converging' with the outside
world, a coming together. This I find a very intriguing and inspiring
thought. This places subject and object in not so rigid a relation.
We as human beings then 'know' something if we can 'come together'
I agree with you that quality doesn't come after the S/O discrimination.
It rather is inherent in the world. In my opinion we cannot perceive
without experiencing quality (positive or negative!). But, and that
might be considered controversial in this forum, in my opinion we
also cannot perceive without BEING someone and without perceiving
SOMETHING (whatever that may be... not necessarily static objects).
Quality, Subject and Object do not exclude eachother, they are inextricably
linked together. It makes no sense to me to put either of these components
as primary. This is the point where I disagree with Pirsig. But I
have to work this out more.
I believe you can interpret Pirsig in a very pragmatic and empiric
manner in this way. Thus you can avoid any metaphysical assumption.
We all experience the fact that experience is primary. But experience
can be hardly perceived as a 'thing' in itself. It begs other categories.
I was wondering, considering the above knowledge - "sunesis" sentences,
how Pirsig considers knowledge. What IS knowledge in MOQ? Knowledge
needs by definition something knowing and s.t. to be known. Or is
knowledge impossible in MOQ? Or is knowledge transformed into experience,
just as the ancient Greeks seem to imply? This sounds familiar with
the meaning of the Greek term for Quality (damn i forgot it, Pirsig
deals with it in ZAMM...) which has a much broader meaning than it
Anyway, I have to call it quits for today - Wim: my Platypi essay
will get here some day...!
thanks you all
>In a message dated 9/12/02 2:22:49 PM GMT Daylight Time, todcoul@koncon.
>Small but fascinating detail: According to some scholars the ancient
>Greeks didn't have concepts for what we later called subject and
>object. Especially in Homer's writings these terms are apparently
>not found. This gives some extremely interesting perspectives for
>Was Homer an intelligent man even though his culture had no concept
of subjects and objects?
>Does discriminating on the basis of quality before the advent of
subjects and objects require intelligence?
>Homer saw unity in all things; particular events played out on a
Universal stage that was there distinct from those who were either
gifted or abandoned by the Gods.
>We all discriminate, and for Homer discrimination was a moral activity.
That is what Pirsig reminds us of; we can still use subjects and
objects, but the underlying philosophy is a moral one, and not a
blind amoral one.
>Bo suggests that quality as an idea emerged from the subject/object
discrimination, which to my view is ludicrous.
>All the best,
Access over 330 professionally developed online training courses
and hundreds of free tutorials and jobs. Click below for details
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:31 BST