LS Re: On thrones and chairs ++


Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@vip.cybercity.dk)
Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:31:05 +0100


On the chair discussion I tend to agree with Bodvar on that it is futile to
discuss which level an object belongs to as such - this seems reminiscent of
an objektive ordering of the world. But there is good sense in talking about
how objects can be understood in light of MoQ (and I think this is what has
been discussed) - because this is not a simple 'transformation'. Pirsigs
concept of value is very much like some semiotic views of the world, where
the 'meaning' of an object (sign) is 'decided' by the interpreter, or at
least to some degree. The value of an old chair is determined (more or less
depending on which kind of relation we look at) by the valuer, - it may be
trash to you, money to an antique dealer and a precious sign of my granny to
me. And as Pirsig shows so well - value has effects, it is empirical and
showing itself everywhere in this world.
Now this is not at all easy to come to terms with, there are lots of issues
that need to be resolved. I have been interested in the consequences for our
notion of scientific objectivity and the relationship between ethics and
rationality, to mention a few. There is much to learn and much to be done,
so keep on working and discussing!

Hugo

--
post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:56 CEST