Horse, Platt, JC,
Great that you're continuing this thread Horse. Still many thing to get clear about.
Hope to be of some help.
HORSE WROTE:
The point I'm making here is that from the MoQ perspective, what exists is moral -
this
appears to be a basic axiom of the MoQ, but what is Good is not identical to what
exists.
The Good is some form of judgement of the betterness within or between patterns of
value.
[and]
But the MoQ is quite specific that reality is a moral ordering based upon static
patterns of
value and Dynamic Value. Truth - which is static intellectual pattern of values - is a
sub-
species of Good and there are many truths.These truths are real but not necessarily
equally
good. We determine their betterness in a number of ways. So again, within MoQ
moral/real
is not the same as Good.
JC WROTE:
Morality is the continuum or a line and Good is the direction ON the line.
WALTER SAYS:
Reality IS a moral ordering of static patterns and of DQ. I agree with JC that
Morality is a continuum as long as it's completely clear that we're talking about
the Morality=Value=Quality kind of Morality and not about the static (social)
concepts of morality (laws, rules, taboes, trafic signs ;-), etc.). But I take it
you knew that.
I would add that this line is a continuum of patterns of value from patterns that
have little potential to let DQ be realised to the best extend to patterns that
have optimal potential to let DQ be realised to the best extend. Now we have
Morality as a continuum towards the optimal realization of DQ, but that leaves
us with the nature of the Good.
HORSE CONTINUES:
What emerges from a conflict between (or within) levels is not, of
necessity, Good. [...] Good is a judgement of some form - whether
Intellectual, Social etc. is debateable, but is not an exact equivalent
of Moral (= Reality).
WALTER SAYS:
'Good is a judgement of some form' is beautifully put. I would like to stress
however that the outcome of the judgement is fully dependent on the
perspective one takes.
When JC says that 'Good is the direction ON the line', it implies that
there is a point on the line from where the direction is marked. I take this as
the perspective that always has to be defined when one wants to examine
the Good or IOW determine the direction of the Good.
Furthermore (and to make it more complicated), I ask myself if we should
restrict the view of Good as some form of judgement to humans only.
In a broader way it's not just a judgement a human-being makes about
his likes and dislikes, but also the 'judgement' lightning makes when destroying
a tree or an acorn makes to grow out to become an oak. I remember Jonathan
ones said patterns of value are actually patterns of evaluation. I hope I don't
rip it out of context, but just the same we can see this Good as an evaluation
of the events and interactions of static patterns of value from a certain perspective.
PLATT WROTE
> Because of the MoQ moral hierarchy it seems to me apparent that even
> though Pirsig collapses the fact-value dichotomy that this doesn't mean that
> all actions the world takes (using whatever instrument it chooses, including
> you and me) are also moral. It all depends (-: on where the behavior in
> question occurs in the MOQ hierarchy of goodness and how other levels are
> affected by it.
HORSE RESPONDED:
>From the MoQ axiom that Quality = Value = Morality and that reality is composed of
patterns of Value it would seem that reality IS and MUST BE moral. But from what you
say
above you seem to agree with me that not everything is GOOD -or at least not all
things are
equally good?
WALTER:
The many differences in the judgement of Good are the result of the static
backpack people are wearing (the context) and the different perspectives
persons take in there judgement.
Horse writes that 'what links Morality and Good is Dynamic Value', but this
just seems to easy an answer. How does DQ link Morality and Good?
My take on this is that the Good is united with the Moral by the individual
proces of broadening the perspective one has. I see this broadening as moral
stages a person goes through in his/her life. The Good from the broadest
perspective is completely coexistent (= parallel and in moment of occurence
and nature alike) with the Morality of the universe. This is the widest perspective
there is. It can be called the universal perspective or the mystic. The self is no
longer part of the judgement. Actually, it is a state in which there's no judgement
anymore ... at all.
Moral grtngs
Walter
application/ms-tnef
