Hi Ron, > Ron: > DQ can also be explained as the Good, which is no-thing/all-things and > express a motivating factor as to why aestetic preference composes all > experience. > Linking it to the concept of a reality/experience of moral values. > > I think that is missed in a purely "not this/not that" explanation which to > myself > leans to a more relativistic version of DQ. > > It's what the majority of the arguement has been about, the idea of DQ being > a place holder > for the indefineable AND an explanation of the Good and the beautiful. > > Its why DQ is moraly superior to SQ (by way of static explanation.) > Lending explanitory meaning to term rather than a place holder for > nothing-ness.
Steve: I think calling DQ the Good is problematic given the hot stove scenario for explaining it as negative value in that case. Likewise, Pirsig says of DQ: "Its only perceived good is freedom and its only perceived evil is static quality itself-any pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of life." Yet, he also talks about it as "betterness" of the undefined sort which supports your equation: "So what Phædrus 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's "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." ...but he later backs off from such statements in LC: RMP: Yes, my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative was not a wise statement. best, Steve 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
