[Dan had quoted Pirsig]
> "Phaedrus saw that the "value" which directed
> > subatomic particles is not identical with the
> "value" a human being gives to
> > a painting. But he saw that the two are cousins,
> and that the exact
> > relationship between them can be defined with
> great precision." (LILA)
I agree with David here. Especially for the way
I've been catching on to what value means in an moq
context. In SOM value has been placed into what is
subjective, I believe. What you like or dislike is
subjective and relative. This skews value away
objects. As if objects have no say in what patterns
they will relate with. Valuing involves both subjects
and objects and this is how valuing is considered
relational or incorporates relationships. Valuing is
linking objects and subjects together. A rope. Thus,
valuing is a relationship builder. Any relationship
is not only what brings its parts together, but a
relationship incorporates its' parts. The
relationship not only brings parts together, but is
the parts that are together. A married couple is not
just a man and a woman. Men and women can be around
without marriage being involved. A married couple
defines a relationship, and this relationship is a man
and a woman. (please, this is an example, I'm not
getting into what politically defines marriage, I'm
using an example of what a relationship is.) What is
the valuing that incorporates not just subjects and
not just objects? This is what the moq is defining.
thanks.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
