Hello everyone On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:39 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Dan: Wouldn't there have to be a defined chair for opposite-from-non-chair to exist? What chair? > > > >>>>>>> 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. Dan: You may be right. But he did take the time to write 2 books so he must have thought he had something of value to say. And if we don't believe in the value of his words, what are we doing here? > > > >>> 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. Dan: I suspect I am whatever you wish me to be. > > >>>>>> 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. Dan: Probably? I have no problem in telling my chairs from my tables. They are discrete. Do you have problems in telling your chairs and tables apart? 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
