From: Matthew Stone (mattstone_2000@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 09:25:33 GMT
Matt, Steve, Platt and lastly, Rick,
I think it is necessary to clarify my own thoughts on
the matter here. Also, thanks to Steve for his
interesting application of the love as verb/noun
debate into the MoQ/SOM problem.
Matt:
> 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.
RICK
A = Magnet, B = Iron Filings. Are these not stable
patterns of
inorganic
>value?
I say:
Rick again asserted that patterns value. I am aware
that a magnet is a set of static patterns, and that
you can argue that there is a relationship of value
between the magnet and the iron filings. But is does
not necessarily follow that 'all patterns value
things' in the MoQ (leaving out Rick's somewhat
unsubtle emphasis). Such reference to 'magnets' etc
is surely born in SOM thought, in the fallacy of
substance. Even use of the word 'thing' is a bit too
SOM for me. All there is is patterns. Yes, one
pattern can perhaps value another one, but the primary
point here is the 'inter-pattern' pattern. Refering
to the patterns between this new pattern, especially
calling them objective names, betrays Pirsig's point,
in my opinion. I feel that patterns can't easily be
pigeon-holed in the same way as objects - a magnet is
not just a pattern, it's a whole set of patterns and
parts of patterns. In and around a seemingly simple
'object' there may be a multiplicity of patterns that
relate in different ways and ultimately deny the
substantive form of the 'object'.
I guess there's a case for each side. My view is that
it is best to try to eliminate all forms of subject
and object when thinking within the SOM - which means
no reference to 'things', of course. I do genuinely
feel that when one truly sees all reality as the
experience of patterns of quality, and imagine how
un-SOM-like these patterns are, there is no problem
with what I've asserted in previous posts. Pirsig's
point is still surely 'patterns manifest value', not
'all patterns value things'.
But then, as Pirsig illustrates, it's often easier to
talk of objects, e.g. A and B, especially when
explaining a SOM to MoQ translation.
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 : Thu Jan 30 2003 - 09:26:22 GMT