At 04:11 AM 11/29/2008, you wrote:
Marsha and Steve
28 Nov. Marsha cited Steve's:
> >Let's apply the pragmatic maxim here .... snip
and said:
> I still do not understand Bo's problem. As I've said when all are
> seen as interrelated and interconnected static patterns of value, the
> subject/object problem dissolves. (At least in theory, in practice
> old habits are a bit difficult to break.) And I've always had a
> problem with an upper DQ/sq level. DQ should not be confined in any
> visual way. It certainly should not be confined to a level. Bo's
> tenaciousness is remarkable, but has convinced me of nothing.
We may have our personal takes of Pirsig's ideas, but if the level
aspect of it is valid everything is NOT interrelated/interconnected - not
at the pragmatic plane that Steve points to.
Greetings Bo,
A pattern belongs to a discreet level, but will also be
interrelated/interconnected to other spovs across all
levels. Pragmatic? I don't understand you pointing to
pragmatic. Please explain.
On 18Nov08 in 'The Menu/Reality issue', you stated about the map and
terrain patterns, "A glib reply is that both are inorganic, the paper
of a map is "dead" organic material and the ink ?? The terrain is
surely inorganic." A map as social spov might be its use getting
from here to there. In your statement you are acknowledging a
relationship between a map-spov and ("dead"-organic-material-spov &
ink-spov). The two aggregates (ink & material) also have
interrelated/interconnected spovs, etc., etc., etc... Patterns are
interrelated and interconnected. Or is a pattern, in your opinion,
just another name for thing-in-iteself?
Is the map-spov unchanging? For you a map's aggregates might be
paper-spov and ink-spov, but I have a beautiful map painted onto a
deer skin. For me a map-spov might have aggregates of paint-spov and
deerskin-spov. Some of my paintings are maps (getting from here to
there). In that case paint and canvas are the aggregates. But if I
am holding in my hand a road map, paper and ink would seem about
right. And let's talk of paper. Having experience in papermaking,
it's component/aggregates might be any number of strange components.
IMHO, a pattern is static until minds are changed.
You may be a Buddhist
and feel all right with such "wisdom" but as Westerns steeped in SOM
(what becomes the 4th. level in the MOQ) we demand an objective
approach to things and are - likewise - bound to deem your approach
as woolly nonsense.
I understand the MOQ to be a synthesis of Western intelligence and
Eastern wisdom. Do you want to exclude the Eastern wisdom?
I am not a Buddhist and I am not not a Buddhist. I very much admire
Mahayana wisdom (the little I understand). What SOM's objectivity
thinks of my approach has lost most of its value for me. Do I need
to cling to it?
Marsha
.
.
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
