From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Jan 21 2003 - 14:34:30 GMT
Dear Steve and David B.,
Steve wrote 19 Jan 2003 11:19:42 -0500:
'In Wim's formulation, I think it follows that an individual is "latched"
through "unconscious copying of behavior." If I think of a person as a
biological pattern with a personality then this makes sense to me. A
person's personality is gradually latched onto existing biological patterns
through unconscious copying.
Since all people are on the same level, then it follows that two people can
only be compared in terms of stability/versatility/receptiveness to change.
(Didn't we eventually agree that every person is a social pattern of value?
Someone posted a quote (from Lila's child I think) to back this up. I
haven't been able to find it.)
If the individual and the mob are both social patterns of value, then since
the individual is more receptive to change he is more moral. Would you
agree?'
I don't think it very useful to think of an individual (human) as either a
social or an intellectual pattern of value. Such an individual is a subject
or an object (depending on your point of view) and can be an element in all
kinds of patterns of value.
I agree with David B. (19 Jan 2003 14:49:06 -0700):
'The distinction between individuality and collectivity simply has nothing
to
do with the distinction between Pirsig's levels.'
I think Pirsig isn't making things clearer by talking about
'biological/social/intellectual entities. It would be better, I think, to
stress that thinking in terms of patterns of value is to be distinguished as
clearly as possible from thinking in terms of subjects and objects. Equating
objects with inorganic and biological patterns of value and subjects with
social and intellectual patterns of value (which Pirsig did explicitly in
his SODV-paper; see on www.moq.org) is only excusable as a crude rule of
thumb or short introduction to SOM for SO-thinkers. It's a fallacy, I
believe, to try to categorize 'things' (usually visualized as subject or
object) as a pattern of value of one of the levels.
We should first be clear about what we mean with a 'pattern of value' (and
how it is to be distinguished from a subject or an object). Only then can we
categorize patterns of value.
Maybe a 'personality', understood as the pattern in someone's behavior,
could be seen as a social pattern of value. The more relevant social
patterns of value are those that can be recognized in the behavior of
groups, however, the one's that are passed on between generations and
constitute the 'culture' of these groups.
'Thinking in terms of individuals' (rather than social classes or family
groups or nations or ...) is an intellectual pattern of value, I'd say. It
constitutes a distinguishable way of motivating one's actions.
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 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 14:34:16 GMT