On Mar 17, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Dan Glover wrote: >> >> >>> 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: The definition of chair-pattern would be opposite-from-non-chair-pattern. That sounds precise enough for me. >>>>>> 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 imagine RMP is one of those great men who say "do not believe my words, but go find out for yourself." That's what my interpretation is based on my own investigation. >> 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. Marsha: You might be modest with Ham, and too rigid with me, and not in between at all. I didn't say that was the case, but it is a possibility. So many perspectives, so little time. >>>>> 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: A chair would probably be visually recognized as falling into the chair-pattern, rather than the table-pattern. They are different; they represent different functions. Same for a tree. I didn't mean to suggest that a forrest-pattern was going to change into a bird-pattern. Bye for now. Marsha ___ 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
