Re: MD Symbolically or actually?

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Dec 20 2002 - 21:56:02 GMT

  • Next message: Glenn Bradford: "RE: MD "linear causality""

    Dear Mari,

    You asked me 20 Dec 2002 07:39:38 -0500 to restate my definitions of the
    social and intellectual levels. I feel like doing almost every second time I
    post something on this list. They differ somewhat for different purposes
    (discussions) and have evolved over time, but they are approximately:

    The social level consists of social patterns of value, that is patterns of
    value that are latched by copying and passing on ways of doing things
    between generations. I sometimes call those patterns 'material culture' when
    distinguishing them from biological patterns of value, even though 'culture'
    doesn't strictly exclude intellectual patterns of values.

    The intellectual level consists of intellectual patterns of value, that is
    patterns of value that are latched by copying and passing on motives. I
    usually go along with closely associating those patterns with (sets of)
    ideas or with 'symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of
    experience' (Pirsig's definition from 'Lila's Child').

    Sam collected a lot of descriptions/definitions by Pirsig from 'Lila's
    Child' in his 25 Nov 2002 12:51:52 -0000 posting.
    I created a genealogy of my definitions in my 20 Aug 2002 23:17:00 +0200
    posting, often compared with definitions of the social level.
    I can also recommend
    http://members.iglou.com/hettingr/pirsig/DefiningSocial.html.

    You also asked whether 'a quick reference system such as a glossary of words
    and terms for use here in MoQdg' would be possible.
    The 'problem' is, that almost everyone seems to use different definitions.
    Even if they use the same definitions (e.g. Pirsig quotes), they disagree
    over interpretation. I'm not the only one who doesn't stick to one
    definition, but changes them over time and according to context and subject
    of discussion. And rightly so, I think.
    The MoQ is a PATTERN of value and not a set of laws with a death penalty on
    non-adherence. It should stay flexible, versatile and debatable to stay
    alive. If we would agree on definitions, we wouldn't need to state and
    restate them and ... thus pass the pattern which they form on. They would
    quickly become dead letters drowned in a flood of writing on other subjects
    then 'how to define the MoQ in this context'.

    The way I use Outlook Express (6.00.2800) to look up old posts, is by
    storing everything I get from the list in a separate map (now containing
    8013 postings from 1,5 year). Incoming mail from the list is automatically
    transferred to this 'MD' map (with a 'rule', created via the 'Extra' menu)
    which selects on the fact that the subject line contains 'MD'.
    Postings in that map can be found either by ordering them on an appropriate
    column (click or double-click on the column heading) or by searching on
    characteristics or content (with Ctrl-Shift-F).
    I sometimes copy specific discussion threads or postings which I wish to
    reply to later to submaps.
    You can also look up my 9 Jan 2002 19:55:01 +0100 posting on 'how to cope
    with mail overload'.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    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 : Fri Dec 20 2002 - 21:56:17 GMT