From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Tue Jan 28 2003 - 23:42:54 GMT
All,
> 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.
Steve:
I would love to hear some other people chime in on this issue, but I mostly
agree with Rick. It the reading that he suggests that rewrites metaphysics
from start to finish.
A couple of months ago I was playing with a "ways of valuing" interpretation
of the static levels which was pointed out to me by Wim and Davor to be an
SOM interpretation. The same applies to Matt's reading of "A values
precondition B."
Now, I may be a sloppy reader, too, but I remember Pirsig writing about
subjects and objects being deduced from Quality. In this case, A and B are
made manifest by Value. I believe the "A values precondition B" thing was
used by Pirsig to show how SOM fits within the MOQ framework, but I don't
think A and B are the patterns at all in this example. The pattern is the
sort of relationship between A and B which is value-centered.
But, I'm sure others will disagree,
Steve
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 - 23:42:55 GMT