Re: MD Pirsig an artist - MoQ & love

From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 27 2003 - 18:23:26 GMT

  • Next message: john66@attbi.com: "Re: MD Pirsig an artist - MoQ & love"

    Hey John and Matthew,

    > >RICK
    > > So what would be the difference between saying "B *values*
    precondition
    > >A" and "B *loves* precondition A"? To me it sounds though the difference
    > is
    > >one of intensity. Maybe "love" is the label applied to the relationships
    > >with the patterns we value most intensely.

    JOHN
    > Right! I remember this part, he was saying that "A causes B" is "B values
    > precondition A", and I agree "love" fits in here very well, virtually
    > synonomously.

    RICK
    Actually John, I was trying to avoid using 'love' synonymously with value by
    calling it a 'species' of value. I'm trying to differentiate 'love' by its
    intensity. All loves are a species of value, but all values do not rise to
    the level of love. (ie. I value my shoes. I love my freedom). Without
    such a differentiation Matthew would be correct when he writes:

    MATTHEW
    If love is synonymous with value, why use the term love at all? And
    asserting this synonimity doesn't really go far towards explaining how love,
    as
    human phenomenon (whether social or biological) fits into the MoQ.

    RICK
        This "over-synonym-ization" of words is something I'm very sensitive to.
    I tend to think that in most cases where two words are 'revealed' to be
    synonymous in meaning, what's really happening is that one one of the words
    is being deprived of its meaning. This is an offense I've accused Pirsig of
    in the past with his Quality=Good=Morality=Value equation; Far be it from me
    to try and add 'love' on as well. So I differentiate 'love' as the most
    intensely held values.
        Now that you can see how the words are not being used synonyms, we can
    see how it fits into the MOQ at ALL levels (not just social or biological).

    MATTHEW
    It only explains love as in'loving', as a verb, not as the noun form that
    John Lennon sang about.

    RICK
    It was my impression that the "noun form" of love that John Lennon sang
    about was the "brotherly love" or "comradery" of the social level. No?

    thanks for your comments,
    rick

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    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 : Mon Jan 27 2003 - 18:25:27 GMT