[MD] LC: Expanded Annotation 57

[X Acto]

John,
Great questions. Value, Good are terms for prefference. Value is contextual.
social and intellectual value in it's context is what is known as "good". but to say
that the universe evolves toward "goodness" is mixing contextual meaning.

-Ron

.



________________________________
From: John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:13:24 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] LC: Expanded Annotation 57

>
>  So long as basic premises remain in dispute, agreement will be
> a dream. Same holds for politics.


How long do basic premises remain in dispute?  I don't mean to sound
impatient; I mean I just got here and everything but I was hoping we'd have
agreement on basic metaphysical premises all wrapped up by next week.

And one wandering wonder about Pirsig's Quality:  It's a _good_ thing, ain't
it?  Like when I say "this tool has quality" I don't mean just value, I mean
GOOD value.  I was under the impression that the metaphysical basis of
everything was a "good" thing.  Like that Schopenhauer guys says it's
beauty.  (Sounds like a smart guy, has he posted anything lately?  Maybe I
will start poking around in the archives)

But when Ham speaks of essence, well that sounds neutral - value free.
Krimel's physical base seems like just a plain old physical base, something
you set a vase on, value free.  Or rather, perhaps having value as in
different values, but no such thing as good and bad.

In that case, we can simplify all the disputation into two simple camps -
those who believe in a good metaphysics and vs the ones that think "good" is
just something humans have invented and its all subjective.
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/