Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:47:22 +0100
Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
>
> Dear LS.
> I think that the discussion over what category a chair or any other
> material application belongs to is futile. A material object is INORGANIC
> VALUE, that is all the MOQ says and is interested in.
Just for the record, I'm with Gene (ITS) who said:
>>1. I'd like to note that chair (as almost everything else) is a
>>combination of value patterns at its creation without regard to how that
>>chair is used:
>>inorganic (wood or, 'oh horror', plastic);
>>biological (ergonomically designed for humans);
>>social (made not to allow us to sit with our legs up);
>>intellectual (if designed by Wright).
In chapter 20, Pirsig goes on about celebrity - dynamic social value. He
points out that the Egyptian pyramids, feathers of an Indian headress, a
policeman's uniform are all about celebrity, ie social value. But these
are all material applications.
Any so-called object is a convergance of value patterns. Wouldn't you
agree (Bodvar) that a King's throne is social value as well as
inorganic?
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 - 16:41:56 CEST