Hi Mary,
> [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:
Exceot for the bit about the intellectual level being something like
"the value of the S/O aggregate" or however Bo puts it.
>> 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?
Steve:
To avoid this anthropomorphism, I would suggest considerring the as
referring to collections of patterns of value. Patterns of value do
not value, they are value. Biological patterns are maintained through
DNA. Whatever it is that gets one DNA pattern selected over another
("fitness") is what we mean by biological quality.
Social patterns are maintained through unconcious copying of behavior.
They are distinct from biological patterns because they are roles that
are not genetically encoded but passed from one generation to the next
through learning. Whatever it is that gets one pattern of behavior
selected over another (celebrity, status, etc.) is what we mean by
social quality. Intellectual patterns are distinct from social
patterns in that they are rationales for behavior. Whatever it is that
gets one intellectual pattern selected over another (truth, parsimony,
coherence, etc.) is what we mean by intellectual quality.
Nowhere in defining the levels do we need to talk about subjects and
objects, though we can still talk about subjects and objects in these
terms.
Best,
Steve
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
