From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 28 2003 - 18:51:19 GMT
Matt,
> > DICTIONARY.COM
> > Love\, n. 1. A feeling of strong attachment induced
> > by that which delights
> > or commands admiration; pre["e]minent kindness or
> > devotion to another;
> > affection; tenderness; as, the love of brothers and
> > sisters.
> >
> > RICK
> > This is the common defintion of love
>
> Matt: Yes, and look, it's a noun, as I said.
RICK
Nobody disputed love was a noun (I never made any claims about nouns/verbs,
you did. You're arguing with yourself on this point).
RICK
> You ask if I read the posts. Well, have you even read
> Lila? Patterns don't value things, patterns manifest
> value, hence the term "patterns of value", not
> "patterns that value" - this is something of an
> important thing, you know
RICK
Matt, you are confusing yourself. Pirsig very clearly wrote that in the MoQ
"B values precondition A." As both "B" and "A" must be patterns, it should
be obvious even to the sloppiest reader that patterns themselves value
things (a human is a pattern Matt! Are you arguing humans don't value
things?). You're reading would completely rewrite Pirsig's ideas from start
finish.
MATT
It's just that you
> overstate the importance of love. You do know of love
> as a concept? Something that consumes vast
> proportions of lyrics, books, poems, and social
> rhetoric - something that man has seeked to unravel
> since the beginning of man itself. And you want to
> cram this vast concept into a tiny definition, value?
RICK
See how confused you are Matt... you can't even decide what you think is
wrong my thesis on love. First you say I've overstated its importance,
implying that I've blown it up to more than it is. Then in the next breath
you say I've reduced it to a "tiny definition", implying I've reduced it to
being less than it is. Of course, I've done neither. I've simply restated
the conventional definition of love in MoQ terms... the same thing Pirsig
did for "causality", "subjects", "objects"...etc.
MATT
> Well actually you've just proven that it *is* simply a
> semantic point. You've said it's a restatement of a
> popular concept (aka defintion) which clearly is a
> semantic point. You are merely pointing something
> out, not coming up with a new positive applicable
> idea.
RICK
The original post from Willy called for a thesis on how "love" fits into the
MoQ. That is what I gave him.
thanks for thoughts Matt, but I think I'm done with this thread,
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 28 2003 - 18:51:13 GMT