At 12:57 PM 5/20/2007, you wrote: >[SA] > Would not betterness, as a central tenet, involve >a human being to want to be a part of this central >tenet, or have a human being believe that he/she is >thus logically this central tenet (for a central tenet >must work everywhere, right?), therefore a person may >begin to think they are this betterness. So, does >this mean others are NOT better, especially if they >don't realize this betterness on an intellectual >level? Wouldn't this leave room for arrogance, maybe? > >[Krimel] >Betterness is a term best applied to the individual. I strive for >betterness. You strive for betterness. Even dmb strives ineffectively for >betterness. But evolution does not strive. It just happens. If there is >betterness involved it is you and I and dmb and who see it. It does not >exist in the world. It exists in our heads. Our individual determinations of >betterness may accurately reflect the future or not. They are nothing more >than our individual estimates of probabilities in the future. And in the >future others will judge the difference between our estimates of betterness >and their own. > >We see betterness existing in the past based on our conceptions in the >present. It is most certainly not fundamental or essential to the workings >of the world. But the true nature of this Pollyanna nonsense is the >reluctance to even talk about worseness. One advocate of the betterness >principle once replied that if an asteroid smacked the earth, it would only >seem to be worseness. Ultimate betterness would be served in the end. This >is a view so vacuous as to be unworthy of discussion. >
Greetings Krimel, I have gone so far as to state that Quality is amoral. Both Platt and Arlo immediately started throwing quotes at me. I presented the water analogy: If everything is water, and there is nothing that is not water, then there is no meaning to water, for there is no way of distinguishing a duality or difference between water and nonwater. It seems to me, if there were a morality to the MoQ, it would reside in the 3rd and 4th levels. Do you agree, or not? 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/
