If everything is ever changing, then what is static? Why did Pirsig use that specific word?
Mark On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:10 AM, MarshaV <val...@att.net> wrote: > > Hello Ham, > > My understanding of static quality (Value) has always been about process: > > Static patterns of value are processes: ever-changing, conditionally > co-dependent and impermanent. (Not independent objects, subjects > or things-in-themselves.) Ever-changing processes that pragmatically > tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. > > > Marsha > > > > On Sep 13, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Ham Priday wrote: > >> Steve, Andre, Mark, and all Value enthusiasts -- >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroer...@gmail.com> >> wrote to Steve: >> >>> Pirsig's response to Bodvar: "This is a subtle slip back into subject-object >>> thinking. Values have bee converted to a kind of object in this sentence, >>> and then the question is asked, "If values are an object,then where is the >>> subject?" The answer is found in the MOQ sentence,"It is not Lila who has >>> values, it is values that have Lila."Both the subject and the object are >>> patterns of value."( Annotn 76). >> >> Rather than making values or Lila an "object", why not consider the fact >> that Value is also a verb? We _value_ things, people, and ideas. As a >> verb, Value means "to rate or scale in usefulness, importance, or general >> worth." But that's a dead dictionary definition. Perhaps this short story >> will bring it to life for you. >> >> "Yesterday evening, while at a friend's house drinking and playing cards, I >> was accosted (which might be a strong word) by his slightly drunk roommate, >> who demanded to know what my values and beliefs were. "Summarize them in one >> word," this fellow ordered. >> >> "If I'd been more sober, I could have nipped the whole confusion in the bud, >> since its source had been evident from the very first question. >> >> "Summarize your values and beliefs in one word," he demanded. >> >> "And, after scoffing at the very notion, I said (a bit flippantly but with >> as much sincerity as a one-word answer to such a question can contain, when >> one is already drunk): "Love." >> >> "Okay, two words," he said, "What do you mean, 'love'? What, like 'spread >> love'?" >> >> "Do you see what just happened? Do you see what he did just then? Love is >> already a verb. Why should we have to tack on another? Well, probably >> because he assumed love was a noun, a thing, a goal or an end, and not a >> process. >> >> "But love is a process. It is a verb. And furthermore, it is a process of >> the self, something that the individual does and must choose, freely, to do. >> What are my values, what do I believe in, how do I live my life? Love I >> love. >> >> "When we change our value from 'loving' to 'spreading love,' what happens? >> We shift our focus from what we ourselves are doing and thinking (e.g. our >> own attitudes, behaviors and ideas), to what others are doing and how we >> want them to behave, think and feel. How far am I willing to go to 'spread >> love'"? Am I willing to 'get rid of' people who I deem less than loving so >> that they don't 'spread' their lack of love? Which is more important--that >> I live according to my own values, or that I am effective in making everyone >> else live by them? >> >> "The difference is that my values are my values, or more accurately, that I >> value (v.) certain things regardless of their prominence or dominance for >> others, and holding these things as valuable does not hinge on whether or >> not anyone else in the world holds them to be so." >> -- [abridged from >> http://meadowsweet-myrrh.blogspot.com/2008/07/value-is-verb.html] >> >> My point here is simply that we love or desire what we value. The >> "proximate object" of our attraction may be a piece of music, a rustic >> scene, a beloved person, or a metaphysical concept of the universe on which >> our focus is fixed. But what produces this attraction is neither the >> noumenon nor the phenomenon, not "me" or "other", but the fact that the >> conscious Self is separated from the Source of its being. That source is >> experientially represented by the object of our awareness. But the >> phenomenon is only an "appearance" presented to us; it is not our being but >> the being of something from which we are conditionally estranged -- >> something we fervently seek for ourselves. >> >> This is how I understand Value. It isn't a realm of the universe constantly >> moving towards "betterness". It isn't a hormonal change in our biological >> state called "emotion". Value is the affinity of the sensible Self for the >> wholeness of Essence which created it. It is our inextricable bond with the >> essential Source that both divides and connects us in the Self/Other >> dichotomy of existence. >> >> Does this self-activated concept of Value resonate with any of you? Do we >> really need a hierarchy of levels and patterns to appreciate what links us >> to the essential Source of our finite being? I'd be interested to know what >> you think. >> >> Valuistically speaking, >> Ham > > > > ___ > > > 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 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
