No Bo I didn't put that quote to back up "whatever you like is
value". I have been saying that liking is good guide to quality and thus
reality and by the way it is "what you like is value".
I also have never proposed liking was decided either by a single static
level. Funny this conclusion isn't really much different from
what liking is an important guide to reality. So this has gone from something
that is too much to comment on to this? Glad Andre and I could help ya:)
erin
Conclusion: Dynamic Value is not whatever we like, rather that existence is
>LIKING. The MOQ also postulates the known static levels and the inorganic
>level includes no subject who likes. Even at the intellectual level existence
>includes all patterns - not merely intellects somish subject surveying
>objective reality. The biological NN craves nourishment, but the social NN
>wants to be slim and rejects food, while the intellectual NN looks
objectively
>on things and eats some healthy stuff. My point is that "what we like" isn't
>decided by SO-intellect's mind, but what the value levels compromise about.
>
>
>Now, Erin produced a quote from LILA:
>
>> PIRSIG: "Unlike SOM, the MOQ does not insist on a single exclusive truth.
>> If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're
>> permitted only one construction of things -- that which corresponds to the
>> 'objective' world -- and all other constructions are unreal. But if
>> quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomese
patterns
>> possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek
>> the absolute 'Truth.' One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual
>> explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to
>> the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until
>> something better comes along. One can then examine intellectual realities
>> the same way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort
>> to find which one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and keep
>> those of value."
>
>..obviously to back up the "whatever you like is value" even if I don't see
the
>immediate connection. The initial axiom of ANY system is what the creator
>INTUIT as self-evident but it can't be proved. So the statement that
>everything is value and Pirsig's demonstrations of it (Hot Stove f.ex.) are
>convincing but no proof, yet "true" in a MOQ context, it MUST be true or it
>all falls apart. The reason one accepts a system is if experience makes more
>sense according to it than the competing system, and the MOQ makes
>much more sense than the SOM ..IMO.
>
>Conclusion: Dynamic Value is not whatever we like, rather that existence is
>LIKING. The MOQ also postulates the known static levels and the inorganic
>level includes no subject who likes. Even at the intellectual level existence
>includes all patterns - not merely intellects somish subject surveying
>objective reality. The biological NN craves nourishment, but the social NN
>wants to be slim and rejects food, while the intellectual NN looks
objectively
>on things and eats some healthy stuff. My point is that "what we like" isn't
>decided by SO-intellect's mind, but what the value levels compromise about.
>
>Have I made sense?
>
>Bo
>
>
>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
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:27 BST