[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[Dan Glover]

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
>  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.

Dan:
Yes, the value patterns holding a water glass together are not the
same as the value patterns that hold a city together. They belong to
different levels of evolution.

Horse:
> 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.

Dan:
That is a great way to put it, yes. This thing we call experience
isn't a thing at all. We name it so as we have a way of making sense
out of it all. But in doing so, we turn Dynamic experience into static
patterns of value, snapshots if you will, of that which is beyond any
description. The danger lies in taking those snapshots as reality...
as the moon vs the finger pointing at the moon.

Horse:
> 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.

Dan:

That is a key part of the MOQ... that morality and Quality are
synonymous, and that reality is Quality. The world is composed of
moral patterns of value. The molecules in a water glass prefer to stay
together in the same way that the structure of a city prefers to stay
together. It is not that either are conscious entities, but rather
they are moral patterns of value. They have no choice, much in the
same way we have no choice but to be what we are... human beings. And
that colors our perception of reality in ways we are rarely aware of.

Horse:
> Keeping clear the difference between DQ and SQ, whilst acknowledging their
> relationship is key to understanding the MoQ. IMO :)

Dan:
Once again, I agree entirely. We understand static quality by what it
is, and Dynamic Quality by what it is not.

Thank you so much... it is always a pleasure to hear from you,

Dan