Hi David and Khoo Just as RMP put it: "... Quality is a morality." (DQ) which gives a moral order to reality (SQ). We don't know this morality, what we know is the results from it, so far.
This morality lead the evolution of stable patterns into the four levels while the unstable low quality patterns goes into the recycle bin: "In the past the logic has been that if chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms and if atoms follow only the law of cause and effect, then chemistry professors must follow the laws of cause and effect too. But this logic can be applied in a reverse direction. We can just as easily deduce the morality of atoms from the observation that chemistry professors are, in general, moral. If chemistry professors exercise choice, and chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must exercise choice too. The difference between these two points of view is philosophic, not scientific. The question of whether an electron does a certain thing because it has to or because it wants to is completely irrelevant to the data of what the electron does. 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'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." Lila (what chapter? 10, 11?) RMP is here using quality, moral and ethics alternately for Dynamic Quality. In the video case it was an example on how a forklift driver picks up a coin by the left 30 ft tall massive steel fork from the ground and places the coin into a bottle. I commented the event of using a million dollar machine to put a coin into a bottle when it must be much cheaper to do it by hand. Just anyone could do that by one hand. A million dollar truck costs about 1000 dollar per day in economical terms which is about 100 dollar per hour. If you are spending hours to learn how to pick up coins from the ground to that cost you're sitting on a hot "deal" instead of a hot stove. Sooner or later someone will tell you that this is bad use of economic resources, bad business because I think it is impossible to get back that money by selling ads on Youtube. The economic world is filled to the top with "hot stove deals" that should force people to jump off the stove in time instead of bringing their enterprise into bankruptcy. Anyone with an MBA has learned the morality in economics and know what I am talking about. Nevertheless are the world filled with bad businesses. Why? My guess is that they haven't also read and understood ZAMM, Lila and MALC thoroughly. There is also this eternal freedom to act and behave stupid. Jan Anders 9 mar 2013 kl. 04.19 david buchanan: > > > Khoo Hock Aun said to Jan-Anders Andersson: > > If DQ cannot be described, how can there be "low DQ" ? Are you saying DQ can > be described and categorised ? [And earlier] Is there such a thing a "low > dynamic quality" ? > > > dmb says: > It is a strange phrase. I can see why you would object to it, Khoo Hock Aun. > In the hot stove example, where the immediate pre-conceputal experience is > described as a "low quality situation" (66) and the as a "low-Quality > situation" (116) when he takes up the same example again 50 pages later. As I > understand it, Dynamic Quality is immediate experience prior to > conceptualization but the whole undivided situation is aesthetically charged, > so to speak. Even prior to reflection, the unanalyzed situation still has an > overall feel to it, either negative or positive. In the hot stove example, > you know it's bad and you even act upon that empirical reality before you > have time to think about who, what or why. You know what I mean? > > "The negative esthetic quality of the hot stove in the earlier example was > now given some added meaning by a static-Dynamic division of Quality. ...A > 'dim apprehension of he knows not what' gets him off the stove Dynamically. > Later he generates static patterns of thought to explain the situation. A > subject-object metaphysics presumes that this kind of Dynamic action without > thought is rare and ignores it when possible. But mystic learning goes in the > opposite direction and tries to hold to the ongoing Dynamic edge of all > experience, both positive and negative, even the Dynamic ongoing edge of > thought itself." > > I guess Jan-Anders was using "low DQ" to rate a video or something. If a > thing is on YouTube, it's not Dynamic in the Pirsigian sense. A recording of > any kind is going to be static, although a person hearing it for the first > time might be having a Dynamic experience. I don't know if the phrase is > illogical or contradictory, exactly, but it is odd and awkward. Maybe terms > like high and low are best used in connection with the levels of static > patterns because they are arranged from bottom to top. Likewise, positive and > negative are good terms to talk about the overall aesthetic charge of > immediate experience precisely because they are so vague and general. You > know what I mean. > > Both of you deserve extra credit for doing philosophy in a language other > than your own native tongue. Wish I could do that. > > > > 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
