Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Thu, 25 Sep 1997 04:29:59 +0100
Doug Renselle wrote:
> Please clarify 'everything is value,' vis-à-vis 'everything is in
> value.'
>
> Does Pirsig say in Lila both of these or one of these? I know, in the
> early part of the book, he says subjects and objects are in value.
> Then later he uses the phrase, 'patterns of value.'
>
> Is not value that which assesses 'betterness' at each Quality Event?
> The result is a SPoV (Static Pattern of Value), but as soon as it
> comes into existence it goes static and thus is subject to new QEs.
>
> When we say, 'everything is value,' do we subordinate value? Pirsig's
> meme of Ss and Os being in value suborns Ss and Os and puts Value in
> its proper role.
Pirsig says that the world is composed of nothing but value so subjects
and objects must be value. As for patterns of value and being "in" value
these are just ways of looking at subsets of value.
Imagine a sandcastle on a beach. It is sand, it is a pattern of sand, it
is in the sand. These are just different ways of looking at it.
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