From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 02:55:38 BST
Hi Platt, DMB, all,
Thanks for your responses.
>> dmb says:
>> Who could argue with such a calm and level-headed request for clarity? I
>> could. :-) Not that I have anything against clarity. In fact, I hope to add
>> some. But its worth pointing out that talking about the various levels of
>> values in terms of people seems VERY APPROPRIATE and is very much a part of
>> the main point. Pirsig's decision to present his MOQ as a novel clearly
>> demonstrates this, I think. He not only invents the title character as an
>> example of what his levels looks like in the real world, but an entire cast
>> of fictional characters, his own biography, a large number of historical
>> examples and many other examples from the actaul living world. (Nobody can
>> accuse this guy of being too abstact or other-worldly, eh!)My point is that
>> actual living people are simply the most likely way, if not the only way,
>> we are going to encounter the various values in our real lives. I think it
>> is more than just useful or appropriate to talk about values in terms of
>> people, I think its one of the main purposes of the book.
Steve:
DMB, I agree that it is appropriate to talk about which types of values
dominate different people, but in many of our discussions we would gain much
clarity in talking about types of patterns of value rather than types of
people. For example, when trying to determine the birthday of a specific
type of value, types of people are irrelevant and only cloud this issue.
Also, when we do want to talk about types of people as in what type of value
tends to dominate a given person, it seems to be it is important to
understand what these types of value are that are dominating or not.
Thirdly, you don't personally limit yourself to talking about types of
people. You say that language is this type and democracy is that type and
so on. If you would start making your cases for leveling by working with
patterns of value rather than simply "types" that are sometimes types of
people and sometimes types of communication, sometimes types of governments,
etc. you would achieve more clarity and be more convincing. I would suggest
that you help us recognize the value you are talking about in, say,
language, and clearly show us the specific pattern of value that you are
referring to.
Platt said:
> I agree with DMB. Since we disagree a lot, I suspect he'll wonder where he
> has gone wrong. :-) Levels in the abstract as some sort of Platonic forms
> just don't jibe with Pirsig's whole outlook. Academic philosophers like
> Rorty play with pies in the sky, but not our down to earth philosopher who
> finds getting drunk and picking up bar ladies part of life. Most of all,
> his levels are embodied in Lila, "And Lila's battle is everybody's battle,
> you know?"
Steve:
Platt, then what is the point of Pirsig including an inorganic level if the
levels refer to types of people rather than types of patterns of value? Do
Pirsig's patterns of value fit anywhere into your understanding of the MOQ?
I disagree that levels that don't refer to types of people but rather to
types of patterns are "abstract as some sort of Platonic forms" or "pies in
the sky." Values are real in my book. They don't exist in some Platonic
realm but rather they comprise our experience. Everything is value. I
think we are in agreement on those points. Pirsig gave us a vocabulary for
talking about values which are recognized by the patterns that we observe.
I'm merely suggesting that we start using it.
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 02:58:36 BST