From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 22:39:43 BST
Dear Sam,
Some disjointed remarks on some or your reactions to my responses to your
essay:
You wrote 15 May 2003 12:50:55 +0100:
'I would say that the famous sportsman embodies something which is valued by
the society, and the fame/wealth/power flow to him as a result of that'
To me that seems a perfect description of values inherent in objects (the
sportsman, things conveying fame/wealth/power), of values that presupposes
subject-object thinking to be understandable. These values are different
from the 'value' which I mean when I write 'pattern of value'.
Maybe we are talking past each other because for you 'pattern of value' is
synonymous with 'scale of values' while for me they mean something
completely different?
You also wrote 15 May 2003 12:50:55 +0100:
'I am simply unaware of what would be put in its place, ie what Pirsig would
say in answer to the question "What is the DQ innovation and static latch
which enabled the intellectual level to come into being?"'
Was Pirsig's answer not simply 'symbols'?
You wrote 19 May 2003 12:14:14 +0100:
'I just don't see it as a particularly fruitful way of understanding, eg,
Rembrandt portraiture, to describe it as "manipulation of symbols"'.
Why not? Do his portraits not obviously stand for patterns of experience he
and others had with the persons he portrayed? No portrait is fully
realistic, not even a photograph, because it is always selected from diverse
possibilities to view someone and because it emphasizes certain aspects
relative to other aspects of the portrayed person. Rembrandt selected and
selectively emphasized in a specific way; there is a pattern to be
recognized in his way of painting, a specific way of collecting and
manipulating the symbols for the experience he wanted to convey.
You also wrote 19 May 2003 12:14:14 +0100:
'If the autonomous individual is seen as simply a "stable pattern of [level
4] values" - which is what I think it is - then it can function as a
"choosing unit" in that this pattern can act as a latch for other patterns
of value to be structured around.'
Didn't we agree on individuals 'participating in' patterns of value rather
than 'being' them?
I consistently write 'pattern of value' rather than 'pattern of values' for
quite some time now. The pattern, the repetitious experience, IS the value,
which can be analyzed in the values of stability and versatility
(recognizability despite minor change) of the pattern. The MoQ is not about
'patterns of values' in the sense of 'collections of values', in which
'values' can be read as a specific kind of 'things' (or at least discrete
experiences). All experience is 'pattern experience' and those patterns
cannot be analyzed in different values (except stability and versatility or
comparable twins denoting the double face of the concept 'pattern' when
compared with absolutely and exact determinated repetition on the one hand
and chance repetition on the other.
An 'autonomous pattern of value' is a very complicated concept in itself
already: it denotes a pattern of value that is independent from a larger
pattern of value. An 'autonomous pattern of value' that 'chooses to act
according to values' or that 'latches other patterns of value' is definitely
too complicated to grasp for me if I want to stick to my basic understanding
of the MoQ and of my understanding of 'pattern of value'.
In my understanding a 'pattern of value' is not 'latched by' a 'choosing
unit', but the pattern itself is the latch for the Dynamic Quality that
brought it into being (that differentiated it both from unpatterned
experience and from other patterns).
In short: I can't separate your 'reifying patterns of value' (and now even
of 'values' themselves) from the way in which you argue your 'eudaimonic
thesis'.
You also asked me 19 May 2003 12:14:14 +0100 to expand on my point that your
argument proves that 'the development of symbolic language cannot have been
the first static latch of the 3rd level in an MoQ that needs 4 discrete
levels'.
You argued that:
'The DQ innovation and static latch which enabled the social level to come
into being was the development of human language, and human language is par
excellence an example of symbol manipulation.'
and that therefore the standard account of the MoQ cannot clearly
distinguish between the 3rd and the 4th level.
IF the 3rd level separates from the 2nd level when human language develops,
IF human language is understood as symbolic language and IF manipulation of
symbols is characteristic for the 4th level, then the 3rd and 4th levels are
not discrete. IF we need 4 levels and IF manipulation of symbols is
characteristic for the 4th level, then the 3rd level cannot start with
(symbolic) language.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 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 May 22 2003 - 22:42:36 BST