Hello everyone On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:10 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dan, > I think we get to the root of the disagreeement here so I just cut > the other stuff for now, but..lets to it. > >>Ron: >> 2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work > > Dan: > Natural selection is at work on the biological level, yes. > > Ron: > Why not the other levels? undefined betterness is natural selection > on every level.
Dan: Natural selection pertains to Darwin's theory of evolution, or in other words, a metaphysics of substance, as RMP explains in LILA. Here are a couple quotes: "Phaedrus thought this was why no one before had ever seemed to have come up with the idea that the world is primarily value. The word is too vague. The "value" that holds a glass of water together and the "value" that holds a nation together are obviously not the same thing. Therefore to say that the world is nothing but value is just confusing, not clarifying." "Biological man doesn't invent cities or societies any more than pigs and chickens invent the farmer that feeds them. The force of evolutionary creation isn't contained by substance. Substance is just one kind of static pattern left behind by the creative force." Dan comments: Within the framework of the MOQ, biological quality, or Dynamic natural selection, is not the same as social quality, or the Dynamic force of celebrity. The the levels have almost nothing in common other than an evolutionary history. > >>Ron: >> 3.Dynamic Quality is best understood as "betterness" > > Dan: > "Betterness" and "not this, not that" are not mutually exclusive. In > fact, they are both pointing at Dynamic Quality. > > Ron: > Ah, we get to it. I have a problem connecting the meaning of "no choice" > with "betterness" . How is no choice, better? Dan: That is not what the MOQ is saying, Ron. Dynamic Quality is free. Static quality is without choice. It is better to be free. > >>Ron: >> Making it a conflict of meaning between the ideas freedom from choice >> and freedom is choice. > > Dan: > We cannot say what is better except as an afterthought. So how is one > to choose what is better? > > Ron: > Indeed Dan, how DOES one choose what is better? I mean is'nt this the > question? Dan: We can't say. That is what our intellectual quality patterns fail to grasp, or rather, when we do grasp it, it is no longer Dynamic. Ron: > we have inorganic needs, biological needs, social needs and intellectual needs > whats best is whats best for all levels, to harmonize goods. > I think if the intellect is concerned with whats best for the environment > biological health and fellow human beings it is aligned with betterness. > This is better than seeking refuge from all choice. Wouldn't you agree? Dan: When we follow static intellectual quality patterns we are without choice. >Ron: > >>Ron: >> I think that the consequences of each makes enough of a difference >> that a dialog concerning it directly influences the meaning and intent >> of any "THE MoQ." > > Dan: > So you believe there are many MOQs? > > Ron: > SOM is a MOQ , because it's value all the way down, and experience is reality > then it stands to reason that there are indeed many,the gallery of paintings > metaphor comes to mind. Dan: Oh no, absolutely not. The metaphysics of substance stands in contradiction to the Metaphysics of Quality. RMP explains this in LILA quite carefully. I can't believe you would say something like this, Ron. Maybe you need to re-read the book? Frankly, I don't even know where to begin... > >>Ron: >> I thought we were having some rather good discussions concerning it. > > Dan: > We were. But then you seemed to go off on a tangent with Marsha. And, > like Ham, I guess I am a bit frustrated... that's all. > > Ron: > I can understand and I am doing my best to explain this point of view, I'm in > the process > of going through all of Pirsigs work I possess to support my case in this > matter > in regard > to quotes. Dan: Good. Perhaps you should start by reading LILA again, paying particular attention to how the MOQ is juxapositioned against the metaphysics of substance, or SOM if you will. Ron: > Hams frustrated because he is insisting on a particular point of view to be > assumed before > he can begin to have a conversation. > I guess that is rather frustrating when no one is willing to adopt that point > of > view because > it immediatly undercuts any arguement they make. Dan: Ham makes no secret of the fact that he has his own philosophy. I do enjoy seeing how that stacks up against the MOQ. It seems to further my understanding. >Ron: > Thanks Dan, > I appreciate the patience, I do think some great dialog is evolving from all > of > it. Dan: Thank you for saying so, Ron. Me too. 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
