[MD] The Greeks?

[John Carl]

O Ron, Full of tricks:


>
> Ron:
> Trick is, not to worship. trick is, not to elevate the dynamic to an
> absolute
> idea of good.Trick is finding which static forms to value.




Well isn't that always based upon a presupposition that meaningful choice is
available?  Thus asking any question about which static forms to value, or
which gods to worship, are predicated upon a pressupposed valuistic source.

To my mind, the MoQ makes a virtue of just positing this source as always
available to any questing mind that seeks it, and assumes that all choices
arise from this values matrix, and this indubitably raises it to an idea of
an absolute good.






> One may value

an ideal of the dynamic, which then is a static good but it still is dealing
> with a very broad, the broadest static value, the one which all other
> values spring from
> and that is the act of valuing itself, the form of making value judgements,
> the act
> of the good.




Hmmm...  That good isn't so much a thing as a process - an act, a will, I
agree.  I wonder about all other values springing from this idealized
statically defined dynamic.  I know that is the way we usually do it, but is
it not possible for the enlightened one to always dwell in the dynamic
choice of the moment?  Not only theoretically, but actually?

Never for long, of course.  But in moments.  I read Pirsig thusly.


> The act of the good, is the first static quality. It is a dynamic concept
> because it is defined as an act, no particular act, but the act of acting.
> The process of making distinctions in experience.
>

The process of making random distinctions?  Or the process of making useful
distinctions?

For I'd say life, the universe and everything depends exactly upon GOOD
distinctions.



> Krimel, like Plato's "Parmenides" makes the point that form, the form of
> the
> good in particular is the basis on which all knowledge is concieved, Pirsig
> adds, "all experience"  so I would'nt just lump what he is saying into an
> arguement of SQ bad, DQ good.. cause thats pretty rigid..having
> said that.
>
>
> I agree completely.  But DQ exclusive of SQ is so rare and fleeting and
unusual.  Whereas SQ closed completely to DQ is such a dangerous and
oft-repeating pattern, moreso in this age of technological ego-reinforcement
and amplification, that'd I'd rather err on the side of DQ any day.


Yours,

John




>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>