[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[Horse]

  Hi Dan

I missed this reply to my post cos I've had my nose buried in software 
books recently!

I think what the 5 expressions below point to are not different types of 
betterness but different aspects of the one betterness applied to 
different forms of static value. Evolving molecular patterns are 
different to evolving thought patterns.
Pirsig went to great trouble in Lila to illustrate that there are both 
static and dynamic aspects to reality.
Dynamic reality is experience, static reality is how we make sense of 
that experience.
And while DQ is the 'generator' of experience we can only discuss and 
compare that experience through the static aspects of Quality. If 
Quality and Morality are synonymous then the way we know (as opposed to 
experience) betterness is through the fallout of that experience - i.e. 
by comparison of static patterns.
Keeping clear the difference between DQ and SQ, whilst acknowledging 
their relationship is key to understanding the MoQ. IMO :)


Horse

On 01/11/2010 00:23, Dan Glover wrote:
> 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
>

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa