From: john66@attbi.com
Date: Mon Jan 27 2003 - 19:53:00 GMT
Hi Rick,
Yeah, I actually don't think they are synonmous, either, and I am sensitive to
that too. I was just trying to agree with you about that one use before I then
added my own idea about love, just to be gracious :-)
I don't think the difference is merely a question of intensity, though. I
think value is not active, it just describes a potential, a wanting, but not a
will. Whereas love is the active force that moves you to do what you value,
that makes what will happen happen. If you passively value your shoes, you
actively love them by doing what you should for them. And I can value freedom,
but unless I do something to bring freedom into existence or do something to
keep it from being lost, I'm not loving it.
To get back to John Lennon, "if you don't treat her right, my friend, you're
gonna find her gone..."
> Hey John and Matthew,
>
> > >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.
>
> JOHN
> > 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.
>
> RICK
> Actually John, I was trying to avoid using 'love' synonymously with value by
> calling it a 'species' of value. I'm trying to differentiate 'love' by its
> intensity. All loves are a species of value, but all values do not rise to
> the level of love. (ie. I value my shoes. I love my freedom). Without
> such a differentiation Matthew would be correct when he writes:
>
> MATTHEW
> 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.
>
> RICK
> This "over-synonym-ization" of words is something I'm very sensitive to.
> I tend to think that in most cases where two words are 'revealed' to be
> synonymous in meaning, what's really happening is that one one of the words
> is being deprived of its meaning. This is an offense I've accused Pirsig of
> in the past with his Quality=Good=Morality=Value equation; Far be it from me
> to try and add 'love' on as well. So I differentiate 'love' as the most
> intensely held values.
> Now that you can see how the words are not being used synonyms, we can
> see how it fits into the MOQ at ALL levels (not just social or biological).
>
> MATTHEW
> It only explains love as in'loving', as a verb, not as the noun form that
> John Lennon sang about.
>
> RICK
> It was my impression that the "noun form" of love that John Lennon sang
> about was the "brotherly love" or "comradery" of the social level. No?
>
> thanks for your comments,
> rick
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 - 19:53:31 GMT