Hi Steve, > Ron: > DQ can also be explained as the Good, which is no-thing/all-things and > express a motivating factor as to why aesthetic 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 argument has been about, the idea of DQ being a > place holder > for the indefinable AND an explanation of the Good and the beautiful. > > Its why DQ is morally superior to SQ (by way of static explanation.) > Lending explanatory 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. Ron: When the negative face of Quality, emerges as conflicting types of Good it most certainly is a wise statement. Therefore by the above statement, when inorganic patterns begin to radically change their preferences (in the case of the hot stove) they do so because it's better which conflicts with the good of organic patterns . DQ must be formulated as the elementary unit of ethics or else the whole four level heirarchy is just garbage as far as explanation. And why would he simply throw that out over the conception that DQ is always affirmative? the problem is that he used the term without alot of explanation which was unwise because it creates confusion among those less studied in the matter. .. .... 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
