Jan-Anders, no, I don't think I got the picture of the mash-up. But I am still thinking about your three dichotomies. Do you think that these three are sufficient for classifying everything? This is kindof a dumb question because some people argue that the classification of anything is done entirely in the third, subjective? There was a book that I read... not too long ago, it was the last good book I read prior to RMP's: Personal KNowledge, towards a post-critical philosophy, by a guy named Michael Polanyi. He argues that all knowledge is personal. I don't know what that means exactly for your second dichotomy, the objective pattern one. I have some thoughts, but...
anyway, I'll think about your three dichotomies, maybe I will have something better to offer after letting it ruminate. thanks, Tim P.S. hermeneutical is a new word for me, so I will have to think about it too. On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:36:09 +0100, "Jan-Anders" <[email protected]> said: > Hi again Tim, and Matt. (You're apologized, please be patient.) > > There's one thing if you have beer or not, another what brand it is and > just a third about your thirst and your taste for it. The quality of the > beer is dependent on all three but they are all independent from each > other. *The main quality trick is to balance all three; enough beer, > right sort of beer and beer at your service.* Energy (mass), Pattern > (objective), Value (subjective). > > To take a ride on a motorcycle you must A) have access to a bike B) It > should be a domestic brand C) You must be able to ride it. > > A is a hermeneutical, B is analytical and C is a pragmatic matter. > They're all valid and crucial but still independent. A competent > philosopher can use all three without losing orientation. > [snip] > You can make an experiment with another picture; take a picture from a > newspaper that really annoys you, violence, a politician of some sort or > an accident. Put it beside the picture of a commercial ad for something > that doesn't appeal at all. Do you see the difference between pattern > and value? Try to switch subject and see the commercial as the accident, > and the accident as something someone is trying to sell. > > What you see might be justified, but it might not be true. > > Next turn them upside down. What's happening when you can't see? > > > got the picture? > -- [email protected] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and love email again 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
