[MD] -elitist ideas

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Marsha]
Up until now our discussion has been focused totally on Quality/DQ, 
not static quality.  Why the switch?

[Arlo]
I was simply responding to your recent post that SPoVs are moral. For 
me, its hard to see how "morality" derives from an "amoral" source.

[Marsha]
Besides what is amorality?  Amoral means without moral 
quality.   Amoral cannot be defined.  It's like no-thing.

[Arlo]
Amoral is defined as the absence of morals. By claiming DQ is amoral 
you are making as much a definition as when Pirsig claims DQ to be a 
"moral force". I suppose you could claim "mu", but that's different 
than a statement declaring amorality. Incidentally, even claiming it 
is "Dynamic" is a definition.

To be honest with you, Marsha, I myself am not fond of the word 
"moral", it is still very heavily laden with social-cultural 
connotations, and is often enacted as a power-word to gain control 
over others. I appreciate Pirsig was trying to rescue this word from 
its popular usage, and I do agree with him that the Quality is a 
moral force, but typically I prefer "value" or "betterness" (which is 
how this thread began) to refer to the Quality force. (I also think 
many see "morality" as the decree of pre-divined intent, that is by 
saying Quality created inorganic patterns of value because it was 
"moral" to do so often connotes an extra-natural being with a 
pre-intent to "create". I, of course, deny this, which is why I think 
we can have our cake and eat it to with regard to evolution (it is 
both moral and chance.... I think I just myself up for attacks from 
both Case AND Platt!))















At 01:26 PM 3/11/2007, you wrote:
>At 11:27 AM 3/11/2007, Arlo wrote:
> >[Marsha]
> >I stated that Quality/DQ was amoral.  I did not state that SPoVs 
> were amoral.
> >
> >[Arlo]
> >How does morality derive from amorality? Let's back away from static
> >social-level morals, and let's say "gravitation". If gravity is "inorganic
> >moral value" (as Pirsig states), how does it derive from an amoral Quality?
>
>Arlo,
>
>Up until now our discussion has been focused totally on Quality/DQ,
>not static quality.  Why the switch?
>
>While I think Dynamic Quality is undefinable (Pirsig says so.).  I
>think the static quality, static patterns of value, on all four
>levels are nothing but morality.
>
>If you're asking me how a static pattern of value comes into
>existence.  My answer is through an experience event.   No
>experience, no value.   No value, no morality.
>
>Besides what is amorality?  Amoral means without moral
>quality.   Amoral cannot be defined.  It's like no-thing.
>
>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/