Hi Dan
I missed this reply to my post cos I've had my nose buried in software
books recently!
I think what the 5 expressions below point to are not different types of
betterness but different aspects of the one betterness applied to
different forms of static value. Evolving molecular patterns are
different to evolving thought patterns.
Pirsig went to great trouble in Lila to illustrate that there are both
static and dynamic aspects to reality.
Dynamic reality is experience, static reality is how we make sense of
that experience.
And while DQ is the 'generator' of experience we can only discuss and
compare that experience through the static aspects of Quality. If
Quality and Morality are synonymous then the way we know (as opposed to
experience) betterness is through the fallout of that experience - i.e.
by comparison of static patterns.
Keeping clear the difference between DQ and SQ, whilst acknowledging
their relationship is key to understanding the MoQ. IMO :)
Horse
On 01/11/2010 00:23, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Horse<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Dan, Ron, David, Andre et alia
I'll take a wild stab in the dark here and guess that what Ron referred to
was something that was about on MD several years ago.
Inorganic - Order is better than Chaos
Organic - Alive is better than Dead
Social - Together is better than Alone
Intellectual - Reason is better than Dogma
Each of these expresses an implied reference to the level below as Dave
points out.
There's probably a 5th idea of betterness as well according to the MoQ -
Dynamic is better than Static
I've also slapped this into a new thread for convenience.
Hi Horse
Agreed. I see no problem here. But again, this "betterness" that Ron
is pointing to... I just don't see that there are four kinds, or five,
as the case may be. They all point to the same underlying idea... that
there is some "thing" driving static quality patterns of value towards
freedom. In the MOQ, we call that some "thing" Dynamic Quality. And
yes, I can see that we are both right and both wrong. I just think it
is confusing to state that there are four kinds of better, especially
if we say Dynamic Quality is what's better. Now, we have four kinds of
Dynamic Quality. I prefer to look towards the commonality of the
underlying notion of "betterness" guiding the evolutionary history of
static quality and not posit this "betterness" as part of that. Once
we do that, we've effectively defined Dynamic Quality. That way,
stagnation awaits.
Thank 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
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
