Hi Steve, > Steve: > I don't see any support in the above for your claim that a new type of > pattern of value only becomes a new level when we can start to > recognize new purposes that were not previously recognizable. > > Mary: > > If you are trying to tell me that the 4 Levels are nothing more than > > groupings of similar things, then the power of the MoQ is diluted. > The > > levels start to take on an arbitrariness that defeats the whole > concept of > > Levels. Might as well introduce a taxonomic classification system. > > Steve: > The levels ARE groupings of similar things, but not "nothing more > than." They are part of an evolutionary hierarchy of value patterns. > [Mary Replies] Yes! An "evolutionary hierarchy of value patterns". This is what makes one level differ from another - what each "values". Do we not agree?
> > Steve: > This is a Bo-ism and not Pirsig's MOQ. You are assigning agency to the > levels. The levels themselves don't value. The levels are labels for > collections of patterns of valuation. [Mary Replies] I guess I'm missing the "Bo-ism"? Not sure what that means. Perhaps we are disagreeing about semantics here? I agree that the levels are "groupings of similar things" in the sense that they are the set of things (where, to be clear, I use the term "things" very loosely) that share a common set of values. In the same way you could make an analogy that says Catholicism is a "Level" of religious thought that shares a common set of values. Does that anthropomorphize Catholicism? Would it be semantically incorrect to say that Catholicism "values" X, Y or Z, or to say that the Social Level does? > > Best, > Steve And to you, Mary 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/md/archives.html
