From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Oct 03 2003 - 23:03:55 BST
Dear Sam,
You asked me 8 Sep 2003 10:05:05 +0100 to look up how I could possibly have
got the idea that you might disagree with interpreting patterns of value as
patterns of experience rather than as scales of values.
You first used 'scales of values' 29 Oct 2002 07:56:14 -0000 in response to
question how to distinguish between dependence on social patterns of values
and dependence on 4th level patterns of values:
'Dependence on social patterns ... we cannot exist apart from a social
context ...
[dependence on 4th level patterns] ... there is a whole scale of values
against which the actor judges (and therefore determines) their actions ...
(So there is a scale of eudaimonic values which are discrete from the scale
of social values.)'
In the thread in which we discussed your 'Eudaimonic MoQ', I asked you 22
May 2003 23:39:43 +0200:
'Maybe we are talking past each other because for you "pattern of value" is
synonymous with "scale of values" while for me they mean something
completely different?'
I took your reply of 23 May 2003 14:58:20 +0100 for a confirmation:
'I think there are two senses of "value" being employed, yes. I disagree
that my language only makes sense within SOM though (I think social level
values do equate to "scale of values" - and I suspect that the MoQ embodies
a scale of values also).'
I may have been wrong to do so. The problem may have been that the concept
'pattern (of value)' is absent (I haven't checked) or at least non-essential
in your 'Eudaimonic MoQ' whereas it is central in my version of the MoQ.
Seeing your repeated use of 'scale of values', I thought (hoped) to use that
as a point of translation. That proved to be wrong, however after you wrote
30 Aug 2003 18:09:24 +0100:
'I think I'd prefer "pattern of experience" to "scale of values" as well.
What I do think the MoQ says is that the various patterns can be aggregated
and sorted according to
a scale of Quality. There is a distinction between that scale of value and
the patterns themselves.'
That leaves to be answered: What IS the role of 'patterns (of value)' in
your version of the MoQ? Or, when you have time to keep your promise to,
what are your objections -if any- against my version of the MoQ and the role
of 'patterns (of value)' in it?
It already clarified a bit when you wrote 8 Sep 2003 10:05:05 +0100:
'there are two senses of "value" - one that can be put on a scale, with
however fine a "mesh" you like, and one that is a synonym for experience
within the MoQ.'
Which of the two is the 'value' that is attributed by a subject to an
object...? Or is that a third sense?
Another point from your 8 Sep 2003 10:05:05 +0100 post:
'I don't see any room for distinguishing a hierarchy of levels with your
stability/versatility typology.'
No, the stability/versatility scale just determines the degree of
'patternedness', the amount of static quality. In my version of the MoQ
levels are distinguished by the different ways in which patterns are
maintained/lathed. Their hierarchy (which is 'higher' and which 'lower') is
simply a matter of historical chronology and -by combining with the idea
that 'all static patterns of value migrate towards DQ'- a suggestion that
'later' patterns of value have more (or 'are more had by') Dynamic Quality.
(No more than a suggestion, because of the undefinability of DQ.)
Finally you asked:
'how do you distinguish between a symbol and a sign'?
I never used the term 'sign'. It has no role in my version of the MoQ. I
guess 'symbolizing' and 'signifying' are more or less synonymous and can
both be used for the 'standing for' relation that defines intellectual
patterns of value according to Pirsig (if I understand him correctly).
Please note that my definition, although compatible (I think) with Pirsig's
one, is different. I define intellectual patterns of value not by what they
'are', but by how they are maintained. The different types of patterns of
value may indeed not have an ontological status. It requires reflection to
distinguish them; primary valueing/experiencing can only distinguish between
sq and DQ, but not within sq.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 23:03:09 BST