On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
> Abstraction is about manipulating carriers - you can't have intellect
> without it.
yes. these "carriers" are patterns of value, so they slide nicely into
MOQ and we don't need to talk about them as a special set of
value patterns.
> The special problem of Intellect is that the MoQ itself is an ENTIRELY
> intellectual construct, yet that MoQ contains Intellect. The whole IDEA
> of an IntPoV is itself an IntPoV. That is what makes it a special
> category and I've said so before (to the consternation of some squad
> members).
>
> Troy is perhaps right to be uneasy about this, because it goes all the
> way back to Plato's separation of "horse" from "horseness". You might
> call this a binary metaphysics which has matterPoV and mindPoV.
i am uneasy only when these "carriers" are separated from the rest of the
world of things and given special privileges. the things labelled as
carriers were interaction, sensation, emotion, and reason. it is my
contention that these value patterns fit solidly within the "four level"
structure of static quality. it follows that they should be treated as
such.
i will further argue that patterns, symbols, codes, language fit solidly
into the "four level" world, too. these are Jonathan's "carriers", which
he contends are "carriers" of value.
yes indeed. everything we can call a thing is a carrier of value. even
words, Jonathan, even words.
so these special, symbolic, abstract "carriers" turn into everyday things
which we can discuss according to Pirsig's MOQ. which is more moral, a
word or a rock? a word is higher evolved, and yes, i am talking about a
single, arbitrary word, out of context, all alone, by itself. it's more
moral than a rock.
> In summary, I would say that any thought system is OBLIGED to use
> information carriers.
i don't follow you, and i'm trying really hard to understand this whole
carrier notion. it doesn't seem to be something i can hang my hat on,
unless all you're saying is: words stand for meaning. now i'll hang my
hat right on that, but it is irrelevent to Bo's post and my response.
> Troy is surely wrong when he says "carriers are results of platypi".
> Platypi are the results of carriers, when the carriers selected prove to
> be inappropriate.
in the original thread it was asserted that possibly "interaction",
"sensation", "emotion", and "reason" acted as carriers of the four levels
of static quality, respectively. to me, this is like an elementary
teacher picking out the A students on the first day. all things save pure
Quality (and Dynamic manifestations) fit nicely within our 4 leveled
structure. "carriers" are teachers' pets.
note that i am not saying "words are not carriers of meaning." all i'm
saying is that words and meaning can be treated equal with respect to
Quality.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:33 BST