[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Alexander Jarnroth]

Thanks!

But what, then, would the use of MoQ be? Because what Pirsig propose is that
the patterns of static moral are different for these different levels (and I
would add that they are by necessity).
Of course you could go back to where the first book ended, saying that just
the intuiting should guide - but I'm not sure it's useful. But of course, it
is because of the usefulness of MoQ that I came to like the second book much
better than the first.
So  guess that what you're really interested in is what in MoQ was termed
dynamic quality. I think you really shouldn't define that, because by
defining it, you propose to know what it is, and then it wouldn't be dynamic
or transcendental or whatever you may wish to call it.
I think that the ability to continuously reform yourself is the only
"pattern" of dynamic to be found. You just have to be open minded.
That is what I myself must do now, and I do it every time I found some new
concept which I like. That is: once I've internalized and integrated a new
concept I force myself to look at the opposition to that concept and
alternatives. Saying: "I really don't need to study this, because I already
know it's wrong",  would call the ultimate method of self-deception and
self-indoctrination.
And it would be static, rather than dynamic.

Have you, by the way, read "Island" by Aldous Huxley? It is his third course
of development, which he in the later foreword to "Brave New World" says he
wished he had written, as an alternative to those two depicted in that first
book.

/A

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: den 25 oktober 2010 09:20
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value

Welcome Alex, Hi Mark --

Thanks for responding to my post.  As you've both said a lot within an
empirical framework, perhaps the best way for me to comment is to select the
statements that most interest me.

***

I would say that, like Mr. Pirsig, you have defined too many categories.  It
doesn't matter (for my purposes) whether the phenomena we experience are
biological, physical, or electromagnetic.  Such intellectual classifications
are only useful when the objective is to apply universal principles to
practical solutions.  Belief systems, individual freedom, social justice,
virtue and morality are not derived from natural law but from the values we
share in common as human beings.  Nature has favored us with the instincts,
nutrients, and rationality to survive and procreate.  But until we
understand our unique position and role in existence (which is a not a
scientific but a philosophical challenge) we shall never achieve the ideal
culture that our value-sensibility aspires to.