[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

Hi Horse

Agreed. I see no problem here. But again, this "betterness" that Ron
is pointing to... I just don't see that there are four kinds, or five,
as the case may be. They all point to the same underlying idea... that
there is some "thing" driving static quality patterns of value towards
freedom. In the MOQ, we call that some "thing" Dynamic Quality. And
yes, I can see that we are both right and both wrong. I just think it
is confusing to state that there are four kinds of better, especially
if we say Dynamic Quality is what's better. Now, we have four kinds of
Dynamic Quality. I prefer to look towards the commonality of the
underlying notion of "betterness" guiding the evolutionary history of
static quality and not posit this "betterness" as part of that. Once
we do that, we've effectively defined Dynamic Quality. That way,
stagnation awaits.

Thank you,
Dan.

Hi , Dan,I understand your concerns.
They are of importance,no question about it.
I think i agree on your line of reasoning but allow me to make a remark
if stagnation awaits,along the path, as well on the forum as irl, it will be
a temporary stagnation,...The Giant itself cannot stagnate, with dynamic
quality as engine.
The Giant himself will move on, dynamically, without hesitation.
Adrie.







2010/11/1 Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com>

> Hello everyone
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
> >  Hi Dan, Ron, David, Andre et alia
> >
> > I'll take a wild stab in the dark here and guess that what Ron referred
> to
> > was something that was about on MD several years ago.
> >
> > Inorganic - Order is better than Chaos
> > Organic - Alive is better than Dead
> > Social - Together is better than Alone
> > Intellectual - Reason is better than Dogma
> >
> > Each of these expresses an implied reference to the level below as Dave
> > points out.
> >
> > There's probably a 5th idea of betterness as well according to the MoQ -
> > Dynamic is better than Static
> >
> > I've also slapped this into a new thread for convenience.
>
> Hi Horse
>
> Agreed. I see no problem here. But again, this "betterness" that Ron
> is pointing to... I just don't see that there are four kinds, or five,
> as the case may be. They all point to the same underlying idea... that
> there is some "thing" driving static quality patterns of value towards
> freedom. In the MOQ, we call that some "thing" Dynamic Quality. And
> yes, I can see that we are both right and both wrong. I just think it
> is confusing to state that there are four kinds of better, especially
> if we say Dynamic Quality is what's better. Now, we have four kinds of
> Dynamic Quality. I prefer to look towards the commonality of the
> underlying notion of "betterness" guiding the evolutionary history of
> static quality and not posit this "betterness" as part of that. Once
> we do that, we've effectively defined Dynamic Quality. That way,
> stagnation awaits.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dan
> 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/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser