Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:00:43 +0100
Hugo wrote:
>
> On the chair discussion I tend to agree with Bodvar on that it is futile to
> discuss which level an object belongs to as such - this seems reminiscent of
> an objektive ordering of the world. But there is good sense in talking about
> how objects can be understood in light of MoQ (and I think this is what has
> been discussed) - because this is not a simple 'transformation'. Pirsigs
> concept of value is very much like some semiotic views of the world, where
> the 'meaning' of an object (sign) is 'decided' by the interpreter, or at
> least to some degree. The value of an old chair is determined (more or less
> depending on which kind of relation we look at) by the valuer, - it may be
> trash to you, money to an antique dealer and a precious sign of my granny to
> me. And as Pirsig shows so well - value has effects, it is empirical and
> showing itself everywhere in this world.
Magnus:
A concrete example of the same thing being valued very differently is the
oxygen Gene mentioned the other day. To us, it is absolutely necessary, we
value it more than almost anything. But to plants, it is merely garbage.
I think this is the case for all levels. Certain patterns of the higher
level is dependant on certain patterns of the lower, and other patterns
of the higher level are dependant on other patterns of the lower. My way
of defining the levels is to see what these two pairs have in common.
Magnus
-- 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