[MD] Freedom and the Good

[X Acto]

John,
It seems to be a distinction of static choice and dynamic choice. Ithink what Arlo
objects to is implying a static choice on a dynamic. To apply static definable meaning to
an indefinable dynamic. Platt insists that MoQ defines the indefinable, the knowing
of "why". Arlo disagrees and I think, rightly so. Pragmatically however if projecting
ultimate meaning on the indefinable dynamic has meaning for him, then it has meaning
for him, but as Arlo points out, thats not really where Pirsig is pointing with his concept of 
dynamic quality. The most difficult thing, as stated before is accepting the only fact there
is, we can not statically "know" the dynamic, therefore the spirit of the MoQ
is "semper fidelis" in experience, situational awareness.

-Ron



----- Original Message ----
From: John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Wed, November 18, 2009 1:46:15 PM
Subject: [MD] Freedom and the Good

I don't quite get Arlo's complaint against Platt, how can having a
cosmically intrinsic directional pull toward betterness impinge upon
freedom?


Freedom isn't something dependent upon anything outside myself, I can choose
to push against gravity and walk on two legs, or just let my body fall and
flop all over the place, whatever.  Likewise the cosmos being composed of
morality doesn't force me to be good.  I'd say just the opposite of
constraint, it offers a force to push against, a choice to be made.

A cosmos without quality is like a rollercoaster in space - meaningless.

Does Arlo complain against gravity because it forbids him from floating off
into the aether?


Choice spells more freedom, not less.
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/