Re: MD People and Value in the MOQ

From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed Nov 17 2004 - 12:36:32 GMT

  • Next message: Simon Magson: "Re: MD People and Value in the MOQ"

    Hi Dan,

    Thanks for the comeback, albeit a little cryptic. You say:

    > Your question is the same question RMP builds LILA around: Does Lila have
    > Quality? Do people have value? After some hemming and hawing, RMP decides
    > Lila doesn't have Quality, Quality has Lila. Is this true?

    I'm very happy with the idea that Lila doesn't have Quality, Quality has Lila. (This is also behind
    the 'good is a noun' point, I think.) But I don't see how this cuts across my argument. I am
    probably being incredibly obtuse about something that other people find obvious, but that doesn't
    stop me searching for an answer.

    Let me expand on that a little. As I understand the phrase 'Quality has Lila', it means that in the
    mystical flux of Quality, which expresses itself in various Dynamic and Static patterns of value,
    some patterns have coalesced around a person which we call 'Lila'. But it is the patterns that are
    primary, not the person. To put it technically, the person is an epiphenomenon without any value in
    and of itself (contrasted with the patterns of value which 'compose' the person).

    I suspect you'll come back at me on this and say I'm still missing the point, which may well be
    true, but perhaps I'm just addicted to bashing my head against this particular brick wall.

    > >and it is merely a useful form of language. It is not
    > >that we generate the value by our description, but that we recognise the
    > >value which is present, in
    > >its static and dynamic aspects.
    >
    > This is wrong. I urge you to rethink it.

    Any hints and tips as to how? Otherwise I'm being condemned without appeal.

    > > Furthermore, where does it say that 'people are value'? I thought
    > >Pirsig said a) people are agglomerations of patterns of value; b) those
    > >patterns can be separately
    > >described; and c) the value of a 'person' is an illusion. Have I misread
    > >him?
    >
    > Misinterpreted, IMO. The MOQ subscribes to the notion that man is the
    > MEASURE of all things. It doesn't subscribe to man is the MEASURER of all
    > things. I'd say that's where our differences begin.

    Can you expand on this? I wouldn't have split those things apart (ie I had always read the former as
    equivalent to the latter) so perhaps this is precisely what I need to dig into.

    > Anyway, I enjoy reading your posts even though I don't always agree with
    > you.

    Thanks. We're all in your debt still for Lila's Child if you ask me.

    Cheers
    Sam

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 : Wed Nov 17 2004 - 12:40:43 GMT