[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[X Acto]

Hello everyone

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:52 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hi Adrie

Or herself. :)

Yes I understand what you are saying, thank you. From LILA:

"With the identification of static and Dynamic Quality as the
fundamental division of the world, Phaedrus felt that some kind of
goal had been reached. This first division of the Metaphysics of
Quality now covered the spectrum of experience from primitive
mysticism to quantum mechanics. What remained for Phaedrus to do next
was fill in the gaps as carefully and methodically as he could.

"In the past Phaedrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic
Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had
always felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love.
They offer no promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to
death, since that which does not change cannot live. But now he was
beginning to see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life
can't exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To
cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to
cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality
by studying what it is not rather than futilely trying to define what
it is.

"Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they
demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static
patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to
protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality,
the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these
patterns of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world.
Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."

Dan comments:

Two comments stand out... we both static quality and Dynamic Quality
to survive, and blind obedience to either is futile. Rather than
trying to define Dynamic Quality as what it is, we need to look at
what it is not. Great points to keep in mind.

Ron:
The idea of attributing blind obedience to that which may not be conceptualized
is interesting along with the last comment, "rather than trying to define 
dynamic
quality as what it is, we need to look at what it is not."
To my own understanding thats what static quality is, trying to define the 
dynamic,
which, of course may nevere be fully defined, it is inexhaustable, the source of 
all
definition and explanation. The source of betterness.
I think looking at what the dynamic is, within the percieved static, comes bit 
closer to the point
RMP was trying to make in those quotes. 

Thanks for the quotes by the way

-Ron