From: Matthew Stone (mattstone_2000@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 12:31:55 GMT
I wrote:
> > Does it not seem that the whole talk of 'entities'
> is
> > indicative of discourse taking place within the
> SOM?
> > My interpretation of Pirsig is that one should
> think
> > of things as patterns only. The genius/retard's
> > intellectual patterns connote high value, but his
> > existence socially - his non-conformity with
> social
> > value patterns - renders him an outcast. There
> seems
> > no need try to cram both his intellectual and
> social
> > existence into one concept of the social self.
Wim said:
> "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."
>
Steve asked:
> My problem is that I'm not sure how to categorize
> patterns of value any
> better than subjects and objects.
I now say:
I agree entirely with the first half of what Wim said.
I think one has to entire abandon the notion of
substance, for it is too engendered with SOM ideas to
be compatible with a MoQ. But I would also question
Wim's last point, also answering Steve's question, by
questioning the benefit of classifying patterns of
value.
Yes, it has to be done to some extent, otherwise we
would be lost completely in a fog of seemingly
arbitary value-patterns. But there is a great danger
in pro-actively trying to classify the patterns, as
they become thought of as entities, and then slip back
into the objects of an SOM. For example, classifying
a human as a social or intellectual set of value
patterns conceptually creates a human 'entity', and so
the SOM reappears.
My view is that the main concern is to completely
abandon the SOM, and truly embrace the MoQ.
Classifying patterns in the MoQ is a secondary
concern, and of limited benefit when one considers
risk of just creating a load of 'objects' that belong
in SOM not MoQ.
Matt.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
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 Jan 24 2003 - 12:32:56 GMT