Re: MD Pirsig an artist - MoQ & love

From: Matthew Stone (
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 09:25:33 GMT

  • Next message: Jonathan B. Marder: "RE: MD Absolutes and Generalities"

    Matt, Steve, Platt and lastly, Rick,

    I think it is necessary to clarify my own thoughts on
    the matter here. Also, thanks to Steve for his
    interesting application of the love as verb/noun
    debate into the MoQ/SOM problem.

    > 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.

    A = Magnet, B = Iron Filings. Are these not stable
    patterns of

    I say:

    Rick again asserted that patterns value. I am aware
    that a magnet is a set of static patterns, and that
    you can argue that there is a relationship of value
    between the magnet and the iron filings. But is does
    not necessarily follow that 'all patterns value
    things' in the MoQ (leaving out Rick's somewhat
    unsubtle emphasis). Such reference to 'magnets' etc
    is surely born in SOM thought, in the fallacy of
    substance. Even use of the word 'thing' is a bit too
    SOM for me. All there is is patterns. Yes, one
    pattern can perhaps value another one, but the primary
    point here is the 'inter-pattern' pattern. Refering
    to the patterns between this new pattern, especially
    calling them objective names, betrays Pirsig's point,
    in my opinion. I feel that patterns can't easily be
    pigeon-holed in the same way as objects - a magnet is
    not just a pattern, it's a whole set of patterns and
    parts of patterns. In and around a seemingly simple
    'object' there may be a multiplicity of patterns that
    relate in different ways and ultimately deny the
    substantive form of the 'object'.

    I guess there's a case for each side. My view is that
    it is best to try to eliminate all forms of subject
    and object when thinking within the SOM - which means
    no reference to 'things', of course. I do genuinely
    feel that when one truly sees all reality as the
    experience of patterns of quality, and imagine how
    un-SOM-like these patterns are, there is no problem
    with what I've asserted in previous posts. Pirsig's
    point is still surely 'patterns manifest value', not
    'all patterns value things'.

    But then, as Pirsig illustrates, it's often easier to
    talk of objects, e.g. A and B, especially when
    explaining a SOM to MoQ translation.


    Do You Yahoo!?
    Everything you'll ever need on one web page
    from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archive -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 30 2003 - 09:26:22 GMT