Hi Ron,
What is wrong with using both of those terms as Pirsig originally did when describing Dynamic Quality. In other words, what is wrong with 'undefined betterness'? Dave, I don't know, nothing as far as I am concerned but Dan sure seems to have a problem with that. I have been argueing for undefined betterness from the begining but Dan doesent seem to think so, how can you have a philosophic discussion rwith someone who claims that if you disagree with them you are disagreeing with the MoQ? -Ron On 25/04/2011, at 12:44 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > Mary, > DQ must have some sort of static meaning to be useful. > This meaning, is both, undefined and an elementary unit of ethics. > Betterness is the closest we can ever get to the understanding > of the basic meaning of DQ. It has greater explanitory power > than a strictly undefined meaning or no meaning for that fact. > > -Ron > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mary <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, April 24, 2011 6:23:20 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will > > Ron? You are saying that DQ is "an elementary unit of ethics upon which all > right and wrong can be based"? > > I got from the quote that betterness is not DQ but an initial response to DQ. > Isn't that different? > > > 'So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, is an > ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of reality create > life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so because it is > 'better' and that this definition of 'betterness'- this beginning response to > Dynamic Quality- is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong > can be based.(LILA, p 161) > > > On Apr 23, 2011, at 10:07 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Mary: >> What do you use it for? >> >> Ron: >> an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be >based.(LILA, >> >> p 161) >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:19 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> To say that DQ is strictly nonconceptual is to say that DQ is strictly >>> meaningless >>> and does not explain anything. It is rendered useless. >> >> >>> Andre: >>> I am reluctant to 'understand' DQ as 'betterness'. >> >> [Mary] >>> Agree, Andre. Betterness is a static pattern of value. >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> > 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 > > 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 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 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
