Steve, Mary, Group
11 Apr. :
Mary originally:
> Yes, Pirsig certainly did say that, but that is not
> the important thing about the levels. He also says this further
> along in the same quote.
[Pirsig] In a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality the four
sets of static patterns are not isolated into separate
compartments of mind and matter. Matter is just a name for
certain inorganic value patterns. Biological patterns, social
patterns, and intellectual patterns are supported by this patter
of matter but are independent of it. They have rules and laws
of their own that are not derivable from the rules or laws of
substance. This is not the customary way of thinking, but,
when you stop to think about it you wonder how you ever got
conned into thinking otherwise. What, after all, is the likelihood
that an atom possesses within its own structure enough
information to build the city of New York?
> 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:
> They are not called "Static Patterns of VALUE" for nothing. What is
> valued by one level is not valued by another, and that is what makes the
> levels differ from each other.
> 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.
Bo:
I admire Mary for her ability to express the very point. If the MOQ just
is putting new names on an existing taxonomy what's the use? And if
Steve's "assigning agency to the levels" means the levels having
purposes of their own, yes, that's the very idea. And his assertion"the
levels themselves don't value" is anit-moq. All the levels do is valuing,
though not in the SOMish "hey, I'm a Q-level, let's see if I like this"
sense.
>From the moment the Reality=DQ/SQ axiom is accepted SOM's
(Reality=S/O) is nil and void. What previously was called matter is
Inorganic POVs, life is biological POVs, commonalties are social
POVs and when it comes to intellectual POVs these are Steve's
"(subjective) groupings of similar (objective) things" (i.e: only gets their
value by our grouping).
Bodvar
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
