From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 29 2003 - 15:36:53 GMT
Steve, Rick, Matt,
I've been glancing in the direction of these posts for a while, but you've
brought up something important in the way of interpretation:
What is a 'pattern of value'? What does the valuing?
As I see the lines being drawn, Rick is saying that the "patterns of value"
do the valuing and Steve and Matt seem to say that "the pattern is the
relationship of value *between* A and B." As I see it, I have to side with
Rick. The reason is because I have to ask myself, "If a 'pattern of value'
is the relationship between A and B, then what's A and B?" Rick and I can
give an answer, "Its a pattern of value." I don't know what the answer
would be for Steve and Matt. It seems to me that if A and B are not
_patterns_ of value (and value is all there is according to the standard
interpretation of Pirsig), then they must be some sort of "value-atom,"
resurrecting the spectare of substance. But then, Pirsig gets rid of
substance for patterns of value the page after he gets rid of causation for
preconditional valuation. So, once again, I have no idea what A or B could
be. As Matt says, "the nomination of 'A' and 'B' is vaguely
SOM-orientated." Absolutely, which is why Rick and I would say that A and
B simply stand for patterns of value. SOM only enters the arena if we
leave A and B as something else that is substance-like.
I think Rick is perfectly right when he says, "In the MoQ, ALL PATTERNS AT
ALL LEVELS VALUE THINGS." [emphasis Rick's] I've gone back in the posts to
see how this whole argument got started and it started over getting love,
"this vast concept," to fit "into a tiny definition, value." Rick is
trying to offer a definition of love (at various levels) according to the
tools supplied by the MoQ. I think he's done it about right. I think I
read his definition way back at the beginning of the thread, nodded my
head, and tuned out. Rick got it about right, I thought uncontroversially,
and I didn't think there would be much discussion about that particular
point. So let me redescribe: the point of the MoQ is to redefine things in
terms of "value" to see if things work out that way. It's not to get rid
of the term love, it's to enhance our understanding of it. Pirsig's point
of saying "Quality is everything" is to make value ubiquitous. That means
everything should be able to be redescribed in term of value. If you can
accept causation and rocks being redescribed into terms of value, I think
it's a small step to redescribe love. As Pirsig says about rocks and
substance, "the difference is linguistic. It doesn't make a whit of
difference in the laborartory which term is used." (Ch. 8) Nothing about
how we feel about love or observe about love changes. None of our poems or
songs change. The simple point of the MoQ is that we _can_ redescribe love
in terms of value and, presumably, this redescription is better and more
nuanced then the old substance-based, SOM definition.
Matt
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 : Wed Jan 29 2003 - 15:32:23 GMT