[MD] Energy, Pattern and Value

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

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" <jananderses at telia.com>
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?
> 
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
                          love email again