From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Nov 29 2005 - 09:39:03 GMT
Rebecca.
27 Nov. you wrote:
> Hey all,
> I was just reading some ZMM last night - my favourite bits when he
> takes down the Dialecticians, and if what Paul says is acceptable
> about DQ being what Pirsig meant by Quality in ZMM then the following
> has to make sense as well:
> If arete is the same as quality, and quality (in ZMM) is dynamic
> quality (in Lila)... and dynamic quality is the pre intellectual
> cutting edge of experience, then that's what arete is as well? Does
> that mean that DQ is excellence? Could we say that what is most
> excellent is what is here right now.. and now.. and now...? Live in
> the now man?
You must listen more to this well of wisdom ;-).
This in an important point in the MOQ, impossible for orthodoxy,
but not for the SOL interpretation. Your summary of what has to
follow from the said premises is valid and clearly lead to
nonsense. No historical period or group of people lived in
accordance with DQ that much is plain, there are only the static
levels. What expires from ZMM - in a SOL-light - is that the
coming of SOM is identical to the intellectual level, consequently
what is said about Aretê pertains to social value.
Note 1. There is a point about the Sophists and Aretê that will be
covered in the next instalment.
Note 2. Keep in mind that SOM is the identical to the intellectual
level because I will weave between those two.
Now, SOM is described as having its origin with the early Greek
philosophers but there must have been an immensely long period
between the deep social (mythological) era and intellect's (logos)
first manifestation with Socrates; A period when the "god-
explanation" gradually lost ground to the "objective-explanation".
This must be heeded because Pirsig speaks about the Homeric
heroes as if direct ancestors of the Sophists. This made clear, we
remember that Pirsig identifies Hector's Aretê with his own
Quality and as the Sophists claimed to teach Aretê - and they
were Socrates' hate objects - Socrates' SOM was what destroyed
Quality. And for ever after SOM became the enemy of the MOQ.
And that makes perfect sense; a higher and a lower level are
natural-born enemies and even if the MOQ is no level of its own,
in its relations with the intellectual level some strong level-conflict
traits emerge. Once the SOL angle to ZMM and LILA is
established all puzzle pieces (that are unassimilated in
orthodoxy) fall into place. Aretê is quality all right - social quality -
and is seen as the lost golden age by Pirsig, just like Barfield
sees the same age as "Original Participation" before humankind
became alienated from its world ... by intellect's S/O value in the
MOQ, by loss of "participation" with Barfield.
Bo
PS:
> Or am I confused about Pirsig's conception of the Good??
You show great insight by pointing out these inconsistencies in
orthodoxy's evaluation of ZMM.
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 Nov 29 2005 - 09:46:17 GMT