[Marsha] Up until now our discussion has been focused totally on Quality/DQ, not static quality. Why the switch?
[Arlo] I was simply responding to your recent post that SPoVs are moral. For me, its hard to see how "morality" derives from an "amoral" source. [Marsha] Besides what is amorality? Amoral means without moral quality. Amoral cannot be defined. It's like no-thing. [Arlo] Amoral is defined as the absence of morals. By claiming DQ is amoral you are making as much a definition as when Pirsig claims DQ to be a "moral force". I suppose you could claim "mu", but that's different than a statement declaring amorality. Incidentally, even claiming it is "Dynamic" is a definition. To be honest with you, Marsha, I myself am not fond of the word "moral", it is still very heavily laden with social-cultural connotations, and is often enacted as a power-word to gain control over others. I appreciate Pirsig was trying to rescue this word from its popular usage, and I do agree with him that the Quality is a moral force, but typically I prefer "value" or "betterness" (which is how this thread began) to refer to the Quality force. (I also think many see "morality" as the decree of pre-divined intent, that is by saying Quality created inorganic patterns of value because it was "moral" to do so often connotes an extra-natural being with a pre-intent to "create". I, of course, deny this, which is why I think we can have our cake and eat it to with regard to evolution (it is both moral and chance.... I think I just myself up for attacks from both Case AND Platt!)) At 01:26 PM 3/11/2007, you wrote: >At 11:27 AM 3/11/2007, Arlo wrote: > >[Marsha] > >I stated that Quality/DQ was amoral. I did not state that SPoVs > were amoral. > > > >[Arlo] > >How does morality derive from amorality? Let's back away from static > >social-level morals, and let's say "gravitation". If gravity is "inorganic > >moral value" (as Pirsig states), how does it derive from an amoral Quality? > >Arlo, > >Up until now our discussion has been focused totally on Quality/DQ, >not static quality. Why the switch? > >While I think Dynamic Quality is undefinable (Pirsig says so.). I >think the static quality, static patterns of value, on all four >levels are nothing but morality. > >If you're asking me how a static pattern of value comes into >existence. My answer is through an experience event. No >experience, no value. No value, no morality. > >Besides what is amorality? Amoral means without moral >quality. Amoral cannot be defined. It's like no-thing. > >Marsha > > > > >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/ 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/
