Ron (X Acto) stated May 12th:

The Doctrine of ideas/theory of forms is essentially a Parmenidian tradition.

 
Ant McWatt comments:

Parmenides' work only survives as fragments (largely as a partially constructed poem titled
as “On Nature”).  I’m just wondering what (text/s) led you to that conclusion Ron?

 

----cut----

 

Ron (X Acto) asked May 12th:

Traditionally, Plato asserts that the ideas (forms) are fixed eternal and
immovable especially the form which all other forms descend from, the Good. The
reason why they believe this is that the good has no distinction. But the idea
of the "unmoved mover" is an old one often asserted as love and
desire and also the intelligible (Aristotle). Now, the questions to ask is: are
undefined better-ness and the un-moved mover similar ideas?


Ant McWatt comments:

I’d say, yes, in the sense that phenomenal, everyday world is “created” by DQ or “an
unmoved mover” but, no, in the sense that DQ isn’t separate from the phenomenal
world.  In the MOQ, here’s no underlying things-in–themselves
or noumena i.e. things which are not objects of our senses (and thus cannot be
objectively verified) but are merely thought as external entities by the intellect. 
You can hear the echo of Plato’s Forms here.  Moreover, I wasn’t too surprised to
read recently that Kant was influenced by Aristotle’s work:

“In order to understand in what way Kant views these matters one has to go back to
Aristotle, on whose works Kant based his model of categoria. Kant makes a big
change in them though. He takes out space and time because in his opinion they
are something else: that which is a priori.”

(http://groups.able2know.org/philforum/topic/4170-1)

 
Ron (X Acto) then asked:

The distinction of the one and the many and Dynamic and static quality similar conceptions?


Ant McWatt comments:

I’d say, yes, in the superficial (static) sense that the one corresponds to DQ and
the many correspond to the static quality patterns but again, no, as indicated
by the logic of the Tetralemma, that it’s not correct to make a definite
assertion about Dynamic Quality i.e. it’s neither correct to say DQ is one or many
nor correct to state that it’s not one or many. It's beyond these type of static distinctions...



---------cut--------

 

Tuukka then added:

As a philosopher, Pirsig has pretty prominent oddities in his work. Such as:

 
1. He doesn't use the word "ontology" in ZAMM and LILA.

2. He doesn't mention phenomenology when speaking of romantic quality.

3. He doesn't mention process philosophy, began by Heraclitus, when speaking of
Quality and Dynamic Quality.

 

Ant McWatt comments:

Tuukka, I’m not too sure how relevant the above observations are as far as Plato’s Good
is concerned but, either way, and however they are phrased, ontology, phenomenology
and process philosophy are all subjects discussed in ZMM and LILA.  I therefore find it's your observation
that is the odd thing here especially, for instance, Plato and Aristotle don't use the words
"ontology", "phenomenology" and "process philosophy" but aren't regarded as "odd" for not doing so. 

Of course, being strange is certainly no disqualification of being a philosopher!  Moreover…
 

“1. [Pirsig] doesn't use the word "ontology" in ZAMM and LILA.”
 

Ant McWatt comments:

Pirsig does actually, in Chapter 26 of LILA:

"That includes the consideration of people like Lila.  This whole business of insanity is an
enormously important philosophical subject that has been ignored-mainly, he supposed, because
of metaphysical limitations. In addition to the conventional branches of philosophy-ethics, ontology
and so on-the Metaphysics of Quality provides a foundation for a new one: the philosophy of
insanity.  As long as you're stuck with the old conventions, insanity is going to
be a 'misunderstanding of the object by the subject. The object is real, the subject is mistaken. 
The only problem is how to change the subject's mind back to a correct comprehension of
objective reality.'"



“3. [Pirsig] doesn't mention process philosophy, began by Heraclitus, when speaking
of Quality and Dynamic Quality.”

Pirsig doesn’t directly mention process philosophy directly but he does refer to
Heraclitus (and some of his contemporaries) in Chapter 29 of ZMM:

"The Immortal Principle was first called water by Thales. Anaximenes called
it air. The Pythagoreans called it number and were thus the first to see the
Immortal Principle as something nonmaterial. Heraclitus called the Immortal Principle
fire and introduced change as part of the Principle. He said the world exists
as a conflict and tension of opposites. He said there is a One and there is a
Many and the One is the universal law which is immanent in all things.
Anaxagoras was the first to identify the One as nous, meaning ‘mind.’"


Moreover, in chapter 9 of LILA there is a critical quote by Whitehead, who, of course, is
recohnised as one of the leading “process philosophers” of the 20th century:

“It certainly felt right.  Not subject and object but static and Dynamic is the basic
division of reality.  When A. N. Whitehead wrote that 'mankind is driven forward by dim
apprehensions of things too obscure for its existing language,' he was writing about
Dynamic Quality.”




.

     
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html