[Marsha] I should have left things at the above statement. [Arlo] Er, then you can ignore my rather terse final statement. It was more-or-less aimed at an assumption that you dismissed the Quality=Betterness connection because of the title of his book.
[Marsha] The way I read the quotes that you sited were that "betterness" is the movement towards Dynamic Quality that will provide for getting unstuck. [Arlo] The Quality question remains "what makes some things better than others?" This was the central question of ZMM. We _know_ some things are better, but when we try to pin down that "betterness", we end up in definitions that almost destroy the Quality they were trying to define. When we say "something has Quality" (or perhaps with Pirsig's inversion, "Quality has some thing"), we mean that in some way it is "better" than alternatives. Or, we can forgo the relational term and say "something that has Quality is Good". In LILA, a central question was "if everyone sees Quality, why do people disagree about it?". Hence the development of a metaphysical frame to examine "better" than SOM what a reality based on Quality means. But I don't think the fundamental "Good/Better" meaning of "Quality" has ever changed. [Marsha] But, Dynamic Quality is still amoral in my book, not good, not bad, not betterness, not any definition. [Arlo] Technically, even calling it "Dynamic Quality" is a definition, is it not? But I think Platt already pointed out how Pirsig was quite strong about Quality and morality being the same thing. Since DQ/SQ is a metaphysical split of Quality, I'd imagine that both DQ and SQ are also about morality. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
