[MD] -elitist ideas

[MarshaV]

At 03:40 PM 3/11/2007, you wrote:
>[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!))

Greetings Arlo,

By amoral, I mean Dynamic Quality is not moral or immoral.  But that 
clarification probably doesn't help much.

As far as I can tell, we are right, wrong and all of the above.  And 
I'm sure we are both open-minded and still available for a dynamic 
experience or two, or more.  And that is what's important.

Marsha