From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Dec 05 2002 - 22:57:07 GMT
Hey Wim,
You wrote:
> It is better, I think, to FIRST define the distinctions between the
> different types of patterns of value (and thereby the different types of
> static quality) and THEN re-integrate subject-object thinking (NOT as
> metaphysics BUT as high quality intellectual pattern of value) by defining
> 'objective' as 'regarding inorganic and biological patterns of value' and
> 'subjective' as 'regarding social and intellectual patterns of values'.
> In other words: I don't accept as 'GIVEN' that 'all inorganic/biological
> patterns are "objective" and all sociological/intellectual patterns are
> "subjective"'. I agree however that thus redefining 'objective' and
> 'subjective' ON THE BASIS OF INDEPENDENTLY DEFINED TERMS FROM THE MOQ does
> not change their meaning a lot compared with everyday usage. These
> redefinitions of 'objective' and 'subjective' enable us to stay on
speaking
> terms with people who are still mired in subject-object thinking.
> Likewise I don't accept AS A DEFINITION OF BIOLOGICAL VERSUS SOCIAL
PATTERNS
> OF VALUE the second Pirsig quote from 'Lila's child', which you mentioned
> 24/11 14:43 -0500 in this thread:
> 'In the MOQ all organisms are objective. They exist in the material world.
> All societies are subjective. They exist in the mental world. Again the
> distinction is very sharp.'
> 'Let's say the intellectual level is the same as mind', from the first
> Pirsig quote, is for me again such a redefinition in MoQish terms of the
> SOMish term mind, that enables us to stay on speaking terms with those who
> are not yet 'thinking MoQish'. In the MoQ the terms 'objective',
> 'subjective' and 'mind' are not necessary to describe and explain
> experience/reality.
RICK
This all sounds good to me. However, it seems to be the opposite of what
Pirsig was trying to do. He (i believe) was trying to better define MOQ
terms by comparing them to 'better known' terms while you're clearing up the
'better known' terms by comparing the MOQ terms. But again, as someone
already familiar with the MOQ terminology, I can really get behind you've
done here.
WIM
> In Pirsig's writings a clear definition of the social level -that does not
> depend on the subject-object definition- seems lacking. My definition is
> that the social level consists of patterns of value resulting from the
> copying of habitual behavior between people.
RICK
I'm not sure I like the use of "habitual" in this definition. I generally
think of "habit" as dealing with biological patterns... or at the very
minimum, I think the term "habitual" encompasses many biological patterns as
well as social ones. Perhaps something like, "the social level consists of
patterns of value resulting from the copying of non-biological behavior
between people" would be clearer.
WIM
These patterns of values are
> only sufficiently stable to be considered as a separate level, if they are
> passed on from one generation to the next and stay recognizable.
> The SoMish term 'culture' can be redefined as the collection of social
> patterns of value that is passed between generations of a certain group of
> people, thereby defining that group as 'society'.
RICK
Sounds good from an MOQ perspective.
it's all good
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 05 2002 - 22:57:07 GMT