[Ron] Here we get back to the same canundrum, quality in relation to what? [Arlo] "Quality" is always perceived in a highly situational, contextual and level-dependent way.
[Ron] As a generalization betterness is subjective. better for what? me, you, life, death, creation,destruction? [Arlo] Again, your "betterness" at any given moment, context, etc. is a function of your inorganic, biological, social and intellectual responses to Quality. An atom can only respond to what is inorganically "better". A cat can only respond to what is biologically "better". No one, lest of all me, is postulating that what is better is Absolute for all contexts and all situations and all people and all time. The only "absolute" is that it the response to "betterness" (in any given context, from a level-dependent origin) across all the MOQ levels that is the Dynamic, evolutionary force that has created the cosmos. [Ron] For me, (and otherswill quote Pirsig against me and question my understanding of MOQ) Quality pervades all,no betterness no worseness just ....value indiscriminate. [Arlo] Whether you disagree or agree with Pirsig on any given point is your own thoughts, Ron. All I'm saying is that to say "Quality is amoral and valueless" and "I buy into the MOQ" are opposing statements, like saying "I'm a Christian but I don't believe in God". The whole point of the MOQ was to posit that Quality-as-Betterness is the fundamental, evolutionary force of the cosmos. Without this, what's the point to the MOQ? What new view does it bring? Science alone gives us an "amoral force" that works for the world, with human "subjectivism" bringing in "betterness". If Quality is not betterness, but some "amoral, valueless force", explain to me how the MOQ differs from cold science on one end, or solipsism on the other? 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/
