Hello everyone On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:29 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 17, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Dan Glover wrote: > >> Hello everyone >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:48 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 16, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Dan Glover wrote: >>> >>>> Hello everyone >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:54 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 16, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Dan Glover wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello everyone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:14 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> That's interesting but I have a very different interpretation of a static >>>>> pattern of value. >>>>> To start with a pattern is not just one occurrence. It is not an >>>>> independent event, >>>>> but, using chair as an example, related to your past history with the >>>>> chair-pattern; >>>>> it also is dependent on immediate sensory experience with the chair, and >>>>> possible >>>>> some future expectation for this chair. >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> What chair are we talking about? Some mythical magical chair existing >>>> in the same realm as the tree falling in the forest with no one >>>> around? What chair? >>> >>> Marsha: >>> There is only static patterns of value and dynamic quality. For me 'chair' >>> is >>> a name given to an accumulation of useful value (events) that tends to >>> persist >>> and change in a predictable pattern. >> >> Dan: >> I agree with your first statement but not your second. > > Marsha: > Agreement is good. > >> Dan: >> To define a >> static pattern of value requires precision. I see no precision here. > > Marsha: > I think a static pattern of value can best be defined as being the opposite > from everything it is not, in other words the definition is very general and > inclusive.
Dan: But not precise? > > >>>> Marsha: >>>> Besides this, it has an interdependence with >>>>> all other chair events both inside and outside the immediate culture and >>>>> with the >>>>> events across all cultures and all languages in all contexts through all >>>>> time. >>>>> In other words, a chair-pattern for me can best be represented by all >>>>> that is >>>>> opposite-from-non-chair. This would likewise hold for the >>>>> justice-pattern, >>>>> wood-pattern, leg-pattern, or a zebra-pattern. A chair-pattern event >>>>> could not >>>>> encompass the entire pattern, but includes only those bits and pieces >>>>> that are >>>>> significant to the event. >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> Well, to my mind, the MOQ states that a chair, like anything else, is >>>> composed of patterns of value. What do you mean by >>>> "chair-pattern-event"? I don't recognize that as a viable term within >>>> the MOQ. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Quality is about experience, process or stream of events. I understand a >>> pattern of value to be an accumulation of useful value (events) that tends >>> to persist >>> and change in a predictable pattern. >> >> Dan: >> Quality isn't about experience. It is experience. > > Marsha: > You are correct. Dan: Thank you. > > >> Dan: >> I think I detect >> some redundancy in your second statement. A pattern of value is value. >> It does't accumulate value. It just is value. > > Marsha: > I understand a 'pattern of value' to be an accumulation of useful value > (events) > that tends to persist and change in a predictable manner. Dan: We will have to disagree. > > >> Dan: >> And static patterns persist over time. That is why they are needed, along >> with Dynamic Quality. > > Marsha: > I have them persisting over time as repeated events. > > >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> If the chair-pattern is represented only by the chair you are sitting on, >>>>> then how >>>>> do you recognize it as a chair? >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> You asked "How are static patterns of value "defined and discrete"? >>>> >>>> I used my chair as an example of a static pattern of value and how it >>>> is defined and discrete. I didn't intend my chair to represent all >>>> chairs... it is an analogy. I recognize it as a chair as I am immersed >>>> in the 21st century Western culture and I know (as I assume you do >>>> too) what an office chair is. I answered you questions to the best of >>>> my ability within the framework of the MOQ, not from my own >>>> perspective. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> My understanding has you overlaying onto your experience the pattern >>> of a chair which allows you to state that you recognized, within your >>> 21 century Western culture, a chair. - You understanding of the MoQ is >>> YOUR perspective. >> >> Dan: >> I tend to disagree with you there. I read the posts of others (dmb, >> Andre, Horse, Arlo, Ian, Ant, Paul Turner, Scott Roberts, I could go >> on and on) and we all seem to agree on certain common denominators >> when it comes to the MOQ. Our understanding matches the MOQ as >> described by Robert Pirsig. > > Marsha: > There may be many common denominators, but I bet there is no absolute > agreement on everything. How would you prove it either way? Are you > trying to tell me that you and this group of MoQ'ers all agree absolutely on > everything? I think presenting this list was a ploy to 'argue from > authority.' Dan: Of course we don't all agree on everything. But we do seem to agree on certain common denominators that underpin the MOQ. As far as authority, no. That wasn't my intent. But it is interesting you took it that way. >Marsha: > I always read your posts with great respect, but I do not think your words > are the first and last on the subject of the MoQ. Once a book is published, > it becomes a relationship between the text and the reader. You are entitled > to interpret the MoQ for yourself, but you are not the Grand Interpreter. Dan: Ham claims I am too modest. You claim I am too agressive. Hopefully the truth lies somewhere in between. > > >>>> On a side note, I get the feeling you are playing games here again but >>>> I will give you the benefit of the doubt. For now. >>> >>> >>> Marsha: >>> I presented my understanding of static patterns of value. While I find your >>> rejection interesting, it doesn't change my understanding. >>> >>> Thank you for the gracious "benefit of the doubt." I am NOT playing games, >>> but presenting how I understand static patterns of value, and that is not as >>> a discrete object, but as static patterns of value overlaid on to immediate >>> experience. >> >> Dan: >> Static patterns of value are not discrete objects! Object is merely a >> convenient shorthand for inorganic and biologcial patterns of value. > > Marsha: > You words do not work for me, not even 'discrete patterns' works for me. > I see nothing discrete about patterns. The way you phrase it it sounds > like your are just replacing the word 'object' with the word 'pattern'. I > understand a static pattern of value to be ever-changing and interdependent, > and not discrete. Dan: Then how do you tell your chair apart from your table? A book apart from a library? A tree apart from a forest? > > >>>> Marsha: >>>> Certainly not by some Platonic ideal form, or a >>>>> master-definition found is some encyclopedia or dictionary. For me >>>>> 'chair' is >>>>> a name given to an accumulation of useful value (events) that tends to >>>>> persist >>>>> and change in a predictable pattern. >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> >>>> I've searched my copy of LILA and found no mention of value events. I >>>> think this is misleading and confusing. >>> >>> I mean events as a series comprising a process/experience. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> .Marsha: >>>>> From my point-of-view, my interpretation makes more sense, so I guess we >>>>> have different concepts of static patterns of value. >> >> Dan: >> And why should I care? > > Marsha: > No reason. I was concerned with how you were using the word 'discrete,' and > thought I'd ask for clarification Dan: Okay. > > >>>> Dan: >>>> >>>> I guess we do have different concepts, but the question is, which is >>>> more in line with the MOQ? >>> >>> >>> Marsha: >>> That sounds like you are looking for an absolute. I am not. I think all >>> static >>> patterns of value, even those in the MoQ, are ever-changing and >>> interdependent, >>> and one might always be able to deepen one's understanding. >> >> Dan: >> I am not. There are absolutely no absolutes. Seriously, I am simply >> attempting to answer your questions to the best of my ability, within >> the framework of the MOQ. If that doesn't do it for you, then feel >> free to formulate your own opinions. As if you need permission, right? > > Marsha: > I appreciate this. I care very much for the MoQ and work very hard to > find a good understanding. Me too. Thank you, Dan 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
