Also Michael, The Quality you would like to pin down IS meaningless, it only has meaning in context to the individual experience. Thus it can not, and will not be universally agreed apon. The latching you seek amounts to alot of tail chasing in this regard.
Whats good for you is bad for me, whats good for you is good for me, whats bad for you is good for me, whats bad for you is bad for me each in it's context. How can one hope to come to any sort of universal latch? for everything is contextual. I think most of the discussions you have initiated have come to this conclusion. -Ron ________________________________ From: Michael Poloukhine <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 1:24:17 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Morality, Abortion and the MoQ > Ron wrote > You touch on a very important point, in MoQ, the term morality takes > on a different meaning, it's not a guide > to distinguish right from wrong or even the common understanding of > betterness, but the understanding > of tendancies toward certain types static patterns and their > relationships. MP: I take issue with that statement, Ron. I don't think it is accurate to MoQ. Quality implies what humans perceive as "better" over "worse." Without that distinction, Quality is meaningless. Pirsig goes into great detail to show this in ZMM. These "certain types" of patterns toward which things tend in Quality experience are "better" than the one from which they tend. MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/ 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/
