Greetings SA & Ron & everybody, At 08:35 AM 6/25/2007, you wrote:
> > > [SA previously]] > > Ron and you mentioned sacredness before. I remember Ron akined > > sacredness to betterness. I'm looking for a trigger, a stimulas to > > understand what sacredness is in accord with betterness, thus, a > > dynamic understanding to moral force. > > > > [Ron] > > I termed it in the phrase "everything is sacred, nothing is sacred" > > all sacred/betterness no one thing more sacred or better. > > betterness/sacredness is best described as a static >pattern which > > grows toward dynamic change. > >[SA] > So, generative is betterness, sacredness, moral? >Degenerative is worse, exploitive, immoral? > >[Ron] >That's why I feel the term moral or "betterness" does not hit all the >bases when I concieve >of dynamic quality. even when I try to explain in neutral terms, its >opposite arises >in your response. that is why I use "everything is moral,nothing is >moral" >insert your favorite term, moral, sacred, better. growth and decay >pursue dynamic quality. >therefore I tend to believe all is moral. > > > I have been fighting the terms 'good' , 'moral' and 'betterness' for a long time. Ant pointed to the error in my thinking. It's not that RMP has limited DQ, but that he's raised Good, Moral and Betterness to the reach Dynamic Quality. These terms are not my puny interpretation of what's right and wrong, good and bad, but the beautiful and everchanging dynamic. I've seen the errors in my thinking, and don't mind admitting I was wrong. Yes Ron, seen this way all is moral. 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/
