From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Feb 08 2004 - 21:42:29 GMT
Bo said:
> I seem to be the only one (Mati exempted) to see that the MOQ rearranges
> EVERYTHING and leaves a new world in its wake.
>
> Paul:
> It is what Pirsig has called Dynamic Quality that leaves everything in
> its wake, not the MOQ. The MOQ is among the intellectual patterns that
> are left in its wake.
DM: I said good post to Paul. Bo asked me to elaborate, well really I think
Paul was challenging
what Bo has to say in a good and informative way, for both parties. But I do
wish people
would focus more on discussing one point at a time (I too am guily here) so
that
there was more understanding of where we differ and less talk that seems to
be full
of misunderstanding on both sides. EG in the above Bo talks about how the
MOQ,
now is he refering to a set of concepts or the metaphysical concept of
ontological quality
that contains SQ and DQ as its two aspects? And then Paul simply comes in
and says
DQ is the source of all SQ. Well are they agreeing or disagreeing, hard to
see unless we can
really focus in only exact uses and tiny differences or big underlying
assumptions that may be lurking.
I call for more clarity please, (also from myself).
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 6:38 PM
Subject: RE: MD Objectivity, Truth and the MOQ
> Hi Paul, David M. and Crowd.
>
> 6 Feb. DM wrote to Paul:
>
> > Just wanted to say good post,
> > I would accept what you say here.
>
> Could you elaborate what you find so good.
>
> ..........................................................................
>
> 6 Feb. Paul wrote:
>
> > > Bo said:
> > > I accept this - of course I do - but just wanted to point out that
> > > this is Pirsigs interpretation - a most convincing one, but it's
> > > difficult imagining Plato postulating something as higher than GOOD
> > > (could you provide a quote ...from Plato?)
>
> > Paul:
> > I think he does do what Pirsig says, but it is subtle. For example,
> > this quote below seems to be agreeing with the MOQ that truth is
> > subordinate to the good:
>
> Of course Plato did, I have never questioned Pirsig's
> interpretation only that Plato did not see any evil ..he did not in
> his own eyes "subordinating Good to Truth" rather put Truth
> above the dreaded "Man" who - according to Protagoras - was all
> things measure . This new way of arranging things became the
> SOM by and by, we agree about that, don't we?
>
> But a million thanks for taking the trouble to look things up. These
> excerpts I will save an try to ponder the particulars of Plato's
> reasoning.
>
> > Bo said:
> > > Again, I accept Pirsig's interpretation, but contemporary Greek
> > > thinkers did not know Aretê as Good. It got translated into "virtue"
and
> > > the translators would certainly have used "good" if that was the case.
> > > It was P. in the RT passage in LILA who made this "discovery". This is
> > > most convincing but it's no use by presenting it as if the Greeks knew
> > > the MOQ, to the contrary they saw the S/O (or the embryonic form it
had
> > > with Plato) as the best.
>
> > Paul:
> > As Poot and Mark have responded, other translations suggest the Greeks
> > saw it as excellence in human endeavour. The MOQ can divide it into
> > biological excellence (e.g. strength, speed), social excellence (e.g.
> > virtue, leadership), intellectual excellence (e.g. rhetoric, truth).
>
> But of course I knew about the "excellence", no embarrassment
> that, still it was Pirsig who made it into Quality and Quality into
> Reality. You say the MOQ "can split it into biological and social
> excellence, but if Excellece=Quality the MOQ splits it into
> Dynamic and Static and then "quarters" the static part. .
>
> But for you too Paul, is/was Rhetoric an intellectual endeavor?
> ZMM describes the coming of SOM and whether you accept the
> SOLAQI or not SOM is intellectual value. The Sophists were the
> last defenders of the old Social reality not any Intellectual
> forerunners and Rhetorics was their "tool".
>
> PIRSIG (ZMM p.391)
> "Dialectic, which is the parent of logic, came itself from rhetoric.
> Rhetoric is in turn the child of the myths and poetry of ancient
> Greece. That is so historically, and that is so by any application of
> common sense. The poetry and the myths are the response of a
> prehistoric people to the universe around them made on the basis of
> Quality. It is Quality, not dialectic, which is the generator of
> everything we know."
>
> Here Pirsig says that Dialectics is the parent of logic (SOM) and
> that it comes from the mythological past by way of Rhetorics,
> (intellect out of society in moqish) thus the Sophists who were
> Plato's scapegoats could not be "intellectuals". If the Sophists
> had been the ones that confronted social value THAT conflict
> would have been central in Pirsigs presentation. But - no - it was
> Plato vs Sophism.
>
> And one thing more. Just as ZMM and the its Aretê=Quality is
> Pirsig looking back on the events in Old Greece, so is LILA
> looking back on ZMM and gives it a different content.
>
> > Bo said:
> > I seem to be the only one (Mati exempted) to see that the MOQ
> > rearranges EVERYTHING and leaves a new world in its wake.
>
> > Paul:
> > It is what Pirsig has called Dynamic Quality that leaves everything in
> > its wake, not the MOQ. The MOQ is among the intellectual patterns that
> > are left in its wake.
>
> Yes, once you have accepted the MOQ premises DQ does. It's
> just like God becomes everything after you have become a
> believer.
>
> > Bo said:
> > It requires a little juggling, but the important first step is to see
> > that intellect is a static level and as blind to the Quality context
> > as the rest of the levels.
>
> > Paul:
> > Here, BoMOQ departs from Pirsig's MOQ. Dynamic Quality pervades all
> > static patterns, including intellectual patterns; it is the continual
> > source of them and the source of change in them. The Sophists sought
> > to maintain an understanding of the relationship between static
> > quality and Dynamic Quality but lost the struggle with Plato who
> > confused Dynamic Quality with static intellectual quality. In Lila,
> > Pirsig suggests that the Hindus succeeded where the Sophists
> > ultimately failed:
>
> The Sophists knew as little of the quality context as Plato did. A
> metaphysics like the MOQ reaches back and rearranges
> everything in its picture. It is from that point of view we see this
> context. It delivers an unpreceded powerful explanation, but to
> say that the past saw things this way is nonsense. A nonsensical
> is that of Plato "confusing" things. He represented the intellectual
> level and that one is supposed to be better that the social value
> of the Sophists. ...but from there is a view greater than intellect.
>
> Constantly IMO.
> Bo
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 08 2004 - 21:54:13 GMT