From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 04 2003 - 18:11:45 BST
Hello Wim,
Welcome back. However much we may disagree (or agree) about the MoQ, I have always found your voice
one of the most lucid and congenial in this forum - you certainly make me think hard about what I
have said!! Anyhow, to the matter at hand.
> 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.
What I actually said was: "perhaps you could point me to where I denied 'experience'?" A slightly
different request. It still seems to me that we are talking past each other a bit.... so let's move
to what I think is the key question:
> That leaves to be answered: What IS the role of 'patterns (of value)' in
> your version of the MoQ?
So far as I am aware, this is not an area where I disagree with the standard account. So I see all
things (ie everything static) as being patterns of value - a product of the interaction between
Quality and other static patterns, which occasionally react fruitfully - ie with dynamism - to
produce something new, ie a new configuration of patterns. As I say, this isn't an area where I
would want to say anything differently to anyone else - perhaps I haven't fully taken on board all
the relevant elements, but to my mind that has yet to be established.
> 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?
"Mu"? The question you ask only makes sense within SOM, and if you've accepted the MoQ then you're
not using SOM so.... However, the 'scale' I'm talking about is simply the differentiation between
the different levels of the MoQ. If all is value then the existence of the different levels implies
a scale of value - I don't see why that is a contentious claim. That is a second order description
compared to the first order description that all is value; that all things which exist are patterns
of value.
> 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.)
OK. Now that that is clarified for me I can see that this is a very useful tool for analysing
Quality. However, it seems - perhaps just a suggestion - that you don't have the discrete levels any
more. Is that right? (Do you accept that there are levels, some 'higher', some 'lower'?)
> 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.
>
I think this is an area where your view is superior to the standard account, viz. that in the
standard account the intellectual patterns of value seem to be free-floating without any reference
made to how they develop or interact. (So the comparison is with DNA and the environment, and the
abstraction of Darwinian evolution - the 'intellectual pattern of value' seems to be the equivalent
to DNA but the other elements of the analogy seem under-explored). Your focus on how the patterns
are maintained is useful I think. However....
> 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?
Time is not easy to come by at the moment, so a brief response rather than indefinite delay. You
define the third level as unconscious static latching? To my mind that is a good description, but it
is - or may be - a description of something epiphenomenal, ie not of the essence of the third level.
In other words, I think that you are pointing out something which is true, but which doesn't give a
full account; it is necessary but it is not sufficient. I think that a full account of the third
level needs to make some reference to the governing milieu within which the unconscious copying
takes place, ie the field of language and culture, narratives, rituals and mythology. So I think
you've latched(!) on to a part of the explanation (which hasn't been adequately addressed before)
but I think there is more to be added on to make it comprehensive.
Similarly, I think you conceive the fourth level to be conscious copying of behaviour patterns?
Again, I don't think this is a sufficient account of the fourth level, for similar reasons. But if
we stick with level 3 for the moment, a discussion might remove some of my objections.
Thanks again
Sam
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 : Sat Oct 04 2003 - 18:55:18 BST