>Ron:
>The last post on this particular problem for today, I swear.
>
>When Pirsig wrote:
>*) LILA:
> This problem of trying to describe value in terms of substance
> has been the problem of a smaller container trying to contain a
> larger one. Value is not a subspecies of substance.
> Substance is a subspecies of value. When you reverse the
> containment process and define substance in terms of value
> the mystery disappears: substance is a "stable pattern of
> inorganic values." The problem then disappears. The world of
> objects and the world of values is unified.
>
>He mistakenly gave the impression of a meta-objectivism. which contradicts
>the statement of Value or Quality (ultimate reality) as being indefineable.
>
>By stating that substance IS a "stable pattern of inorganic values"
>He unwittingly alludes to a meta-objectivists view. When the remainder
>of his Metaphysic states that substance is an intellectual pattern
>ABOUT "stable patterns of inorganic values".
Ron,
To me "stable pattern of inorganic values" means inorganic SPoVs that
are very established culturally. I cannot think of SPoVs as anything
but conceptual. SPoVs are known (conceptual (value)), phenomenon is
direct experience (value) until a recognized pattern.
Ron:
Thats the way I see it too Marsha. SPoV are conceptual understandings about
dynamic quality.
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/
