Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:46:36 +0100
Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>
> * Bodvar Skutvik
> |
> | Nice try Lars Marius, but you are reinventing gunpowder. The very
...
> * Lars
...
> I want to really know why SOM must be
> rejected and then see how MOQ solves the problem. What I really want
> to get at is why the concept of quality is necessary and exactly what
> it means. I have a superficial understanding of all this already, but
> I want to get it under my skin.
>
Lars,
I think your statement above, "What I really want...," is what we are
all after.
While reading Lila, did you intuit at least vicariously the answer to
your question?
Is Value intuitive to you? If it is not, we are done, finis. If it is
then classify it: first in SOM, then in MoQ.
When I do this exercise, I find that my SOMlikeness (what it is like to
be...) puts objective value (we call them properties) IN things
(objects). I discover that part of value spectrum is not objective so I
have only one other place to put it: in non-things (subjects). In
SOMland, we say that things (objects) have value. This demotes value!
In SOMland we discard subjective values as insubstantive (i.e., not
substance -- thanks to good old Aristotle).
When I move to MoQland, I find that my MoQlikeness puts things (static
patterns) IN Value. In MoQland, we say that Value has things. This
promotes value! In MoQland we retain the interrelationships of things
as Quality measures we use to assess their goodness.
One of the best reasons we must reject SOM is because it improperly
classifies value! There are many other reasons too.
Lars, I hope you do not find the above tautologous.
Careful study of Lila starting on page 66 of the hardbound edition and
page 76 of the paperbound (both Bantam) starting with the quote,
"The value is between the stove and the oaths. Between the subject and
the object lies the value."
he begins a complex sequence of answers to your question. The essence
of the answer is in this quote, but Pirsig's extended prose around the
four platypi, the three puzzles, and the five moral codes finish the
task.
Lars, again, I hope you do not find this tautologous.
Mtty,
Doug Renselle.
-- "Faithful quantum mechanics do not fear singularities."1 January 1998, Doug Renselle.
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com 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 - 16:42:37 CEST