Hello everyone On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello everyone -- > > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:34 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> What is betterness? what does it mean to you? >>> >>> RMP states there are four kinds of betterness. >> >>> Which of those four do you value the most? > > Dan Glover replied: >> >> I am not sure that I follow you... what four kinds of "betterness" >> does RMP state, and where does he state this? >> >> For something to be better, there must be something else to >> compare it to. ... >> >> "Better" can apply to anything, so how can there be only four kinds? >> Aren't we developing a rigidity by saying so?
Ham: > > Yes, exactly. "Betterness" is relative to the observer. So are Goodness, > Morality, and Aesthetic Value. These are man's free choices based upon his > individual value prerogatives. The fact that man is the choice-maker of his > universe is what moral freedom is all about. It is the exercise of > rational, self-directed value. Hi Ham Thank you for your response. I agree that "betterness" is relative. I have a problem with an independent "observer", however. Quality, or "betterness", doesn't reside in the observer or the observed. It comes before that distinction. Remember the part in ZMM where Phaedrus goes between the horns of subject and object? In light of Robert Pirsig's writings, it seems clear that the MOQ would state there are no "free choices." We are suspended in a vast web of social and intellectual patterns that make up our culture. This "self" that you posit is a fiction... albeit a convenient fiction. Point to it. Where is the self? >Ham: > To set up Goodness and morality as a universal standard is to deprive man of > his innate freedom. Of course society must establish laws and mores that > discourage evil or hurtful behavior and reward peaceful cooperation, but > that is how mankind becomes civilized and flourishes collectively. Such > conventions are not, should not be, based on natural law but reflect the > values of free agents -- the consensus of "individual minds" seeking the > common good, and excellence where possible, for their culture. Dan: We must agree to disagree, Ham. I know from reading your past posts that you've put much thought into your philosophy. However, it seems at odds with the MOQ in very fundamental ways. The "individual" is a fiction. There is no observer sitting detached and apart from the universe. Within the framework of the MOQ, the "individual" is a set of co-mingled patterns of value. When society establishes law, it does so by implementing both social and intellectual patterns of value to ensure the cooperation of biological patterns that might otherwise usurp society. Who was it that said you'd get farther with a smile and a gun than just a smile? The MOQ would seem to agree. >Ham: > I see the capacity of man to be his own authority as his role in existence. > If understood and appreciated by enough people, this moral concept > potentially can lead to an authentic society, in my humble opinion. Dan: Again, we must agree to disagree. Experience isn't an "us against them" scenerio. An "authenic" society would seem to sit apart from the inauthentic. It would have no chance of becoming "better" and would die of stagnation. In my opinion, of course. Thanks for the discussion, Ham. It is always a pleasure to hear from 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
