Greetings Ham, The 'unknowable, undefinable undividable Goodness' that I spoke of in outside of the language's ability to explain it, because language seeks to divide, describe and define. With language the subject and object are created. I suggest you might say there seem to be two types of goodness/betterness. There is the static, measurable, judgmental type which is associated with a subject (ego/individual), and there is an ineffable Goodness(interconnectedness/nonduality).
Marsha On Apr 26, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Ham Priday wrote: > Marsha, Ron, Dan, and All -- > > > "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] > > [Marsha to Ron]: >> I see the world being composed of conventional meaning, >> AND unknowable, undefinable & undividable Goodness. > > [Ron to Marsha]: >> Here's the difference Marsha, >> I see the world as being composed of nothing but meaning >> while you see it as having no meaning at all. >> and that is a huge difference in our world outlooks >> so we are going to disagree about stuff like that. > > [Ron to Dan]: >> Dynamic Quality is best understood as "betterness" > > [Dan]: >> 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? > > It is obvious to anyone reviewing the recent posts (re: the story of "me" and > Free Will) that Goodness, Quality, and Betterness have led to confusion and > rancor in interpreting the MoQ. The author himself was contradictory when he > introduced Quality in ZMM. "You know what it is, yet you don't know what it > is," he said. > > His logic went downhill from there: > > "Some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But > when you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, > it all goes poof! There's nothing to talk about. But if you can't say what > Quality is, how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even > exists? If no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it > really does exist. What else are the grades based on? Why else would people > pay fortunes for some things and throw others in the trash pile?" > > But what is missing in this analysis, as I think Dan recognizes, is the > observing subject without which there would be no Goodness to experience, no > Quality to grade, and no Betterness to aspire to. For none of these > aesthetic attributes exists outside the realm of conscious sensibility. All > goodness is subjective, that is, relative to the cognizant self who measures > it. To say that the universe is good and going on better means that things > are going well for YOU, not that the universe is "made of" Quality. > > Of course, reducing the individual to "interrelated quality patterns", as > Pirsig does, makes it difficult to understand how we have the capability to > realize goodness in our relational world. Nor does it help matters to insist > that we are "composed of value", which isn't true either. We are sensible > of, drawn to, the value of otherness. > But the beauty of a melody cannot be realized by a tone-deaf person, nor can > the quality of a painting be appreciated by a blind man. > > Unfortunately, by doing away with subjects and objects, Pirsig had no choice > but to posit Quality as an undefined entity unto itself. This not only runs > counter to epistemology, it renders the MoQ incomprehensible to anyone with a > logical mind. > > With sincere apologies to all Pirsig loyalists, > --Ham > > ___ 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
