Re: MD Pirsig an artist - MoQ & love

From: Matthew Stone (mattstone_2000@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jan 27 2003 - 14:27:31 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "MD DQ People"

     --- John Howard <john66@attbi.com> wrote: > >RICK
    > > So what would be the difference between saying
    > "B *values* precondition
    > >A" and "B *loves* precondition A"? To me it sounds
    > though the difference
    > is
    > >one of intensity. Maybe "love" is the label
    > applied to the relationships
    > >with the patterns we value most intensely.
    >
    > Right! I remember this part, he was saying that "A
    > causes B" is "B values
    > precondition A", and I agree "love" fits in here
    > very well, virtually
    > synonomously. I'd also say that B is what is
    > expected given precondition A,
    > and love is the will to do what is expected.
    >
    > > By this explanation of Love, we really can see
    > Love at work in all
    > >levels of the MoQ. Since all patterns at all
    > levels value things, they can
    > >love as well.
    >
    > Yeah, anything doing what is expected is loving.
    > Water turning to steam
    > when it is boiled is loving, a very faithful and
    > unwaveringly strong love.
    > If we expect a rock to fall on our foot, it is love
    > that carries out our
    > expectaion and actually makes the rock fall on your
    > foot. (It's not
    > "gravity", or "electromagnetism" - it is love)

    I say:

    I disagree. If love is synonymous with value, why use
    the term love at all? And asserting this synonimity
    doesn't really go far towards explaining how love, as
    human phenomenon (whether social or biological) fits
    into the MoQ. If person A loves person B, and you say
    this merely means there is a pattern of value whereby
    person A values person B, this doesn't really explain
    love as a value (pattern) in the general sense. Yes,
    it depicts a small, distinct pattern of value between
    the 2 people, but, as I said, it doesn't explain love
    in a broad sense. It only explains love as in
    'loving', as a verb, not as the noun form that John
    Lennon sang about.

    My view is that one can understand this by using
    Pirsig's emphasis on evolution. A stable prosperous
    society is made so in part by love. *Biologically*,
    we have evolved to become vulnerable to love. So what
    I'm saying is that suceptibility to love is just a
    small part of the biological patterns that make
    people: this creates the notion of love as a grand,
    metaphysical force. And when you do fall in love, you
    create a small value relation - but this is all it is.

    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 : Mon Jan 27 2003 - 14:28:22 GMT