From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Feb 17 2004 - 07:52:17 GMT
Paul and Group
I lag behind. With no auto-response facility I have to rely on good
old reason.
13 Feb. you wrote:
> Here is where your SOLAQI interpretation forces you to go wrong.
> Because, to you, the intellectual level = S/O, when Pirsig, in his
> letter, says that, "the Oriental cultures developed an intellectual
> level independently of the Greeks during the Upanishadic period of
> India.." you are forced to look for an Oriental version of the search
> for "objective truth." But this didn't happen the way it did with the
> ancient Greeks.
Agreement of how you interpret the ramifications of the SOLAQI.
> Pirsig says that the brahmanic social rituals, which protected the
> social moral order and provided "signposts" to Dynamic Quality, became
> too static. But what Pirsig is also saying is that the intellectual
> patterns emerging in the Orient did not lose this "understanding" of
> Quality that was present in their social patterns. To repeat a quote
> from last week, Pirsig notes that "...what made the Hindu experience
> so profound was that this decay of Dynamic Quality into static quality
> was not the end of the story. Following the period of the Brahmanas
> came the Upanishadic period and the flowering of Indian philosophy.
> DYNAMIC QUALITY REEMERGED WITHIN THE STATIC PATTERNS OF INDIAN
> THOUGHT." [Lila p.438]
I tried to find out a little about the so-called Upanishadic period,
but it was very difficult, my Philosophy book seemed to say that
Indian culture went on to the Yoga branch of philosophy after the
said Brahman era, and then that the later more prominent
philosophers (for instance one Shankara around 800 AD) were to
be compared to the Middle Age religious philosophers ...for
instance Johannes Eckhard.
So here is an important point that must be observed. Religious
thinking is an immense field - God knows - but this is Social
patterned thinking (Dynamic re. religious mysticism) according to
the MOQ, not Intellectual. We will muddle the MOQ thoroughly if
we regard "philosophy" or "thinking" as Q-INTELLECTUAL
activity in themselves. If there was a budding intellectual level it
petered out and ended in religious mysticism. Its dynamism was
the very obstacle to a static establishment. Consequently, there
as no SOM from where the MOQ could emerge.
But Pirsig's insight is valid. It shows that the Social Era whether
Indian, Greek, Aborigin, Norse, Celtic ...you name it ... is
universally regarded as GOOD; of unity between the humans and
their world and - consequently - the coming of Intellcect is
regarded as a fall into a divided reality. Everything points to this
conclusion, but it does not diminish the MOQ, rather makes it the
best explanation of this enormous scenario.
> "Rta" became "dharma," a term central to Indian philosophy that
> "includes both static and Dynamic Quality without contradiction."
> [Lila p.440] The Sophists seem to have been doing the same thing with
> aretê and rhetoric until Plato and co. usurped it with dialectic.
Yes, but still Social Dharma, the Oriental culture didn't allow it to
"degrade" into static intellectual Dharma ...at least this is the way
it looks from the MOQ. The fact that the Orientals paid so much
attention to the dynamic aspect of existence explains the lack of
any further STATIC development.
> Bo said:
> On page 386 (Bodley Head) LILA says:
> "The mythos is the social culture and THE RHETORIC which the culture
> must invent before philosophy becomes possible." (my capitals)
> Paul:
> Yes, rhetoric is invented in social culture, initially for religious
> purposes I believe. As above, intellectual patterns begin an end in
> society and its language. I'm not disputing that. This doesn't mean
> that all rhetoric is purely social though. You seem to have a narrow
> view of rhetoric; even Aristotle saw it as a branch of practical
> science. Logic is a type of rhetoric.
By Aristotle's time the intellectual level had begun to
"reconstruct" everything into its own image, so no doubt it
adopted rhetorics as a branch of science, and that logic became
intellectual.
> Paul:
> Yes, mythos over logos means that intellectual patterns begin an end
> in society and its stories. What's your point?
That "logos" (reason) is Intellect, something you have denied up
to now.
> Paul:
> Yes, philosophy is intellectual, and the (philo)Sophists were
> philosophers:
As said, a religious "philosopher" is no Q-intellect representative.
> "The pre-Socratic philosophers mentioned so far all sought to
> establish a universal Immortal Principle in the external world they
> found around them. Their common effort united them into a group that
> may be called Cosmologists. They all agreed that such a principle
> existed but their disagreements as to what it was seemed
> irresolvable....
Even if the cosmologists never reached any agreement of what
the Principles were, the point is that their effort was the
emergence of the "objective" attitude.
> The resolution of the arguments of the Cosmologists came from a new
> direction entirely, from a group Phædrus seemed to feel were early
> humanists. They were teachers, but what they sought to teach was not
> principles, but beliefs of men. Their object was not any single
> absolute truth, but the improvement of men. All principles, all
> truths, are relative, they said. "Man is the measure of all things."
> These were the famous teachers of "wisdom," the Sophists of ancient
> Greece." [ZMM p371-372]
The struggle between Plato and the Sophists was the result of the
former seeing the Sophists as obscuring the issue, of reverting to
the old reality of "beliefs". The improvement part was
disregarded compared to the overwhelming danger of objectivity
(Truth) going to the dogs.
> Bo said:
> That's OK, now that you have Matthew (the Fallen Priest) with you I am
> sure to be on the right side. ;-)
> Paul:
> Although you say it in jest, this ad hominem mentality of yours shows
> up again and again. I think it is better if Matt's or anyone else's
> arguments stand or fall by their own merit and not be judged by the
> name on the post. Also, I don't care for the "recruitment campaign"
> approach to this forum that you seem to have adopted e.g. where you
> have applauded people simply for disagreeing with me and voiced
> despair for those "adhering" to my views. Frankly, I find it a bit
> messianic and mildly delusional - and at the very least, low quality.
A little smiley please, anyway I think we have made great strides.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 17 2004 - 07:54:10 GMT