From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jan 29 2003 - 16:28:41 GMT
Matt:
All that you wrote makes perfect sense to me. Nicely done. Yours is
one of those posts that makes me say, " I wish I'd said that."
Platt
> I've been glancing in the direction of these posts for a while, but you've
> brought up something important in the way of interpretation:
>
> What is a 'pattern of value'? What does the valuing?
>
> As I see the lines being drawn, Rick is saying that the "patterns of value"
> do the valuing and Steve and Matt seem to say that "the pattern is the
> relationship of value *between* A and B." As I see it, I have to side with
> Rick. The reason is because I have to ask myself, "If a 'pattern of value'
> is the relationship between A and B, then what's A and B?" Rick and I can
> give an answer, "Its a pattern of value." I don't know what the answer
> would be for Steve and Matt. It seems to me that if A and B are not
> _patterns_ of value (and value is all there is according to the standard
> interpretation of Pirsig), then they must be some sort of "value-atom,"
> resurrecting the spectare of substance. But then, Pirsig gets rid of
> substance for patterns of value the page after he gets rid of causation for
> preconditional valuation. So, once again, I have no idea what A or B could
> be. As Matt says, "the nomination of 'A' and 'B' is vaguely
> SOM-orientated." Absolutely, which is why Rick and I would say that A and
> B simply stand for patterns of value. SOM only enters the arena if we
> leave A and B as something else that is substance-like.
>
> I think Rick is perfectly right when he says, "In the MoQ, ALL PATTERNS AT
> ALL LEVELS VALUE THINGS." [emphasis Rick's] I've gone back in the posts to
> see how this whole argument got started and it started over getting love,
> "this vast concept," to fit "into a tiny definition, value." Rick is
> trying to offer a definition of love (at various levels) according to the
> tools supplied by the MoQ. I think he's done it about right. I think I
> read his definition way back at the beginning of the thread, nodded my
> head, and tuned out. Rick got it about right, I thought uncontroversially,
> and I didn't think there would be much discussion about that particular
> point. So let me redescribe: the point of the MoQ is to redefine things in
> terms of "value" to see if things work out that way. It's not to get rid
> of the term love, it's to enhance our understanding of it. Pirsig's point
> of saying "Quality is everything" is to make value ubiquitous. That means
> everything should be able to be redescribed in term of value. If you can
> accept causation and rocks being redescribed into terms of value, I think
> it's a small step to redescribe love. As Pirsig says about rocks and
> substance, "the difference is linguistic. It doesn't make a whit of
> difference in the laborartory which term is used." (Ch. 8) Nothing about
> how we feel about love or observe about love changes. None of our poems or
> songs change. The simple point of the MoQ is that we _can_ redescribe love
> in terms of value and, presumably, this redescription is better and more
> nuanced then the old substance-based, SOM definition.
>
> Matt
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 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 29 2003 - 16:28:17 GMT