Quoting Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Platt] > Thanks Ron. The key phrase IMO is "other synonyms for good." What is > good and what is not good is what ethics is all about, right being good, > wrong being not good. So the MOQ subordinates everything to Quality, > i.e., the Good. And "everything" includes the inorganic as well as all > the levels. > > So I think my interpretation is still valid although if you think > otherwise, please comment further. > > [Ron] > I think it all swings on the interpretation. I think Pirsig describes it > as "good" and "less good" > rather than a "right or wrong" because "right and wrong" are easily > misinterpreted.
Yes, good point. > And are subjective for the most part within the culture which describes > it. Accurate and inaccurate > IMO comes closer to an "accurate " description of Pirsigs term given the > context of the main > Concept of the MOQ. > I feel your interpetation is valid although the degree of accuracy may > be challenged given > Your specific understanding of the term "wrong". The advantage of "good" - "less good" comparison is the emphasis on the Good being the central premise and driving force of evolution in the MOQ. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
