Arlo, Platt, Ron, I am going to have to disagree with Arlo here, but I think we're just playing semantic games, and the jokes / metaphors help, are essential in fact to making progress.
I think I said earlier "by definition" - I'm using better / worse as meaning more / less moral in (my) Pirsigian sense. Better & worse are "merely" words here. The levels have significance (relative morality, better or worse), but so do different patterns within and across levels have significant differences (relative moralities). We need to be careful no to dichotomise good with bad - get beyond good and evil someone said - which may be Arlo's point (?) - there is significant relative evolved morality difference between the bears and berries - that says it is good & proper that berries get eaten by bears - which doesn't mean bears are good and berries bad. That would be oversimplistic short-hand, we might use it, but with extreme caution out of context. Ian On 2/27/08, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Arlo] > > A berry is not "less moral" than a bear. They are both biological > patterns. > > Ron: > Q: Why was the berry crying? > A: her mom was in a jam. > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
