Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:29:31 +0100
Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
> > I'm still not clear about Bodvar's objections to this. (Bo are you listening?)
> > We can only actually experience the biological value of wearing a coat (ie the warmth)
> > biologically. But from an intellectual standpoint we can still see that it's there.
>
> I have had a busy period lately, so I am a little behind, but if
> the objections are my assertion that only one value plane can be in
> focus at a time, and the one about seen from within each value
> level fills the universe, I still uphold those (it is really the same
> thing said differently).
Okay that's fine. I totally agree with you. What I don't understand is
why this makes it invalid for me to say something like "that coat is
inorganic value because it's a dead animal, biological value because it
keeps me warm and social value because it's fashionable"
> Applied to the garment issue: When a person dresses to comply
> with fashion, the suit or coat or whatever is regarded as artifacts
> to enhance the wearer's social status, but if the person is dying
> from cold the clothing enhances his/her biological survival.
If a coat enhances the wearer's social status then it is socially
valuable, why not take the next step and say it *is social value*? If
you want to be pedantic you could say "seen from the social level, this
coat is valuable", but I think it's the same thing.
Also, I may not be a good judge of fashion when I'm in an intellectual
mode but I can still *remember* what it feels like to see something
fashionable. And, I can observe other people's perceptions of value,
even if I don't perceive them myself. In my culture and generation fur
coats are decidedly LOW value. But I'm aware that other people perceive
them as high social value.
In my intellectual mode I can't actually sense the biological and social
values but I can still know that they are there. If we can't know that
I,B,S values exist when we're in an intellectual mode, how could we be
having a conversation about them?
As for the patterns merging. I don't see that observing that many
patterns of value come into play in the object of a coat implies that
they are merging. Yes I agree that they are discrete. But it's like
looking at the lanes of a swimming pool from the side and from the end.
>From the side the lanes seem to be close together, from the end you can
see that they are several feet apart. SOM tends to look at everything
from the side, that's why everything seems merged and confused. With the
MoQ what we are doing is shifting our perception round to the end so
that we can get a better picture of what's going on.
Sorry if I seem to be harping on about this but I'm not sure if I'm
missing something or if I'm just not explaining myself well.
Diana
-- 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 - 16:42:05 CEST