[MD] -elitist ideas

[MarshaV]

At 03:09 PM 3/10/2007, you wrote:
>At 02:27 PM 3/10/2007, Arlo wrote:
> >[Marsha] Hmmm.  I think Quality (a 'better'
> >word) is amoral.  And rather than a drive
> >towards "betterness", a drive towards Quality is
> >a drive towards the amoral, dynamic Quality.  Do
> >you disagree with this statement?
>
>
>
> >[Arlo] Yes, I do disagree.
>
>
>[Marsha]  And it's called the Metaphysics of
>Quality, not the Metaphysics of Betterness.
>

Greetings Arlo,

I should have left things at the above 
statement.  It's not called the Metaphysics of 
Betterness, "betterness" is just a very confusing 
term.  The way I read the quotes that you sited 
were that "betterness" is the movement towards 
Dynamic Quality that will provide for getting 
unstuck.  The "betterness" is the 
unstuckness.  But, Dynamic Quality is still 
amoral in my book, not good, not bad, not 
betterness, not any definition.  And if good is a 
noun (a static pattern of value), so is bad a 
noun.  Only a hand-written explanation from 
Pirsig, himself, will convince me otherwise.

Marsha




> >Halfway through ZMM Pirsig writes "But some
> >things are better than others, that is, they
> >have more quality. ... Obviously some things are
> >better than others—but what's the "betterness"?
> >-- So round and round  you go, spinning mental
> >wheels and nowhere finding anyplace to get
> >traction. What the hell is Quality? What is it?"
> >(ZMM) Foreshadowing his later Dynamic/static
> >split, he writes "The reality of the American
> >government isn't static, he said, it's dynamic.
> >If we don't like it we'll get something better."
> >(ZMM) The impetus towards Dynamic Quality is an
> >impetus towards "something better", or
> >"betterness". As if to drive that home, Pirsig's
> >very next sentence reads, "The key word is
> >"better"...Quality." (ZMM) In LILA, Pirsig
> >mentions the Quality-Better pair saying, "One
> >seeks instead the highest quality intellectual
> >explanation of things with the knowledge that if
> >the past is any guide to the future this
> >explanation must be taken provisionally; as
> >useful until something better comes along." Here
> >again we see movement towards Quality being
> >framed as movement towards "something better".
> >(LILA) Again in LILA, talking about evolution,
> >Pirsig states, "The patterns of life are
> >constantly evolving in response to something
> >"better" than that which these laws have to
> >offer." (LILA) And, again as if to really drive
> >this home, Pirsig shortly thereafter says, "When
> >inorganic patterns of reality create life the
> >Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've
> >done so because it's "better" and that this
> >definition of "betterness" -this beginning
> >response to Dynamic Quality-is an elementary
> >unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong
> >can be based." (LILA) I also think its worth
> >noting, even if only for literary analysis, that
> >Pirsig chooses to end both his books with these
> >statements. "It's going to get better now."
> >(ZMM) "Good is a noun. That was it." (LILA)
> >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/
>
>
>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/