From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Thu Nov 24 2005 - 00:03:31 GMT
Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi David H,
>
>
>>>Questions left hanging are:
>>>
>>>Do value judgments occur on a sliding scale from good to awful?
>
>
>>Yes
>
>
> Everyone seems to agree with the sliding scale metaphor, but on second
> thought I would change "awful" to "evil" to better reflect the moral
> content of Pirsig's meaning of "value."
If you change it to evil then I would disagree. As we know, a doctor killing a germ is moral; intellect triumphs over biology. A germ killing a patient is evil; biology over intellect. But this is
across levels. On the one level you can have differing levels of doctors and differing levels of germs who by themselves run a scale from good to awful (not evil).
>
>
>>>Are value judgments ideas or feelings?
>>
>>Why can't they be both?
>
>
> Ideas can be either intellectual or social patterns. Feelings (according
> to Pirsig) are biological patterns. IMO value judgments are not patterns
> at all, but part and parcel of the cutting edge of experience, i.e. DQ.
In my view 'value judgement' is an expression of value. To me, this can happen at any of the levels. For clarity let's look at the dictionary definition.
Definition: The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.
This would clearly indicate an intellectual component. I'm wrong, value judgements are ideas.
>
>
>>>Are ideas intellectual patterns?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> Yes, but ideas can also be static social patterns when the ideas are
> embedded in groupthink.
I think if this were the case then they are cultural patterns and not social patterns per say.
>
>
>>>Is there anything intellectual about value judgments?
>>
>>If you manipulate those judgements independently of the patterns they
>>represent, then voila you have an intellectual value judgement.
>
>
> Your premise is that value judgments represent patterns. But I don't find
> any pattern creation when I directly behold something beautiful.
I've since changed this premise of 'judgement' after looking up the dictionary definition of the term.
>
>
>>>Do explanations always consist of intellectual patterns?
>>
>>An explanation defined as a description of value. Then no. If you scream
>>out during intercourse, or comment on Mrs Duvet's lovely scones then these
>>are biological and social 'explanations' respectively. However, for
>>intellectual clarity I think it's best to keep the term 'explanation' at
>>the intellectual level.
>
>
> Agree.
>
>
>>>Are intellectual patterns always "contextualized?" If so, how?
>>
>>Definition.
>>
>>Contextualize: "To place (a word or idea, for example) in a particular
>>context."
>>
>>To my understanding there are two ways to read this definition. The first
>>implys that there is intention with the contextualization taking place.
>>For clarity an example of a person contextualizing in this manner might be
>>a philosophologist, musicologist or the kind of ilk who dosen't pay much
>>attention to Dynamic Quality. Read in this way, there are people who do
>>not 'contextualize', Philsophers, musicians and the kind of ilk who 'blend
>>with Dynamic Quality'. But on the other hand, at a more fundamental, less
>>intentional level, contextualized could be taken as 'patternized'. In this
>>case intellectual patterns are always contextualized.
>
>
> Interesting phrase -- those who "blend with Dynamic Quality." How does one
> attain such a desirable state?
Refer my last post to your good self in the "MD Looking for the primary difference" thread.
As for "contexualize" meaning the same as
> "patterned," I agree.
>
>
>>>Does "contextualize" mean that intellectual patterns are always relative?
>>
>>With the two ways of reading the term 'contextualized', there's two
>>answers. In the first example of the philosopholigists and such, patterns
>>contextualized with intention are always relative to he patterns they have
>>before them. Read at the more fundamental level, contextualized patterns
>>are not 'relative' patterns. Of course their relationships can be compared
>>but this is a separate act of its own and not an innate characteristic of
>>all patterns. (Refer my last post to Rebecca).
>
>
> Seems to me all patterns are relative to both their inner construction and
> their place in their surrounding environment.
Agree, this is how it is, upon *reflection*.
>
>
>>>Can an intellectual pattern be Dynamic?
>>
>>Yes. The MOQ was pretty Dynamic, no?
>
>
> Hmmm. The pattern itself (the arrangement of the words, sentences,
> paragraphs, chapters, etc.) is static. But the meanings derived from the
> pattern vary all over the lot. Does that make the MOQ Dynamic? Offhand I'd
> say no, but then again I'm not sure. You may be right, but I wonder what
> others think?
>
OK, since you don't agree I'll clarify. The MOQ is very Dynamic in that the intellectual patterns it puts forward are Copernican compared to current cultural patterns and thus allow for more Dynamic
expression.
> Thanks for your response.
>
> Platt
No worries.
David
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
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 Nov 24 2005 - 02:12:44 GMT