[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[david buchanan]

Ron said to Dan:
... I mean inorganic, organic, social and intellectual betterness. Unless you do not think Quality and betterness have the same meaning.


Dan said:

No, not in this context. You are talking about static patterns of value. Dynamic Quality is what's better. It is what drives static quality patterns towards "betterness," an undefined "somethingness" that isn't a thing at all. Once defined, it is gone... poof. Like a puffy white cloud in a clear blue summer sky... now it is here, now it is not. Where does it come from, and where does it go? It is a meaningless question. It is not a place at all. We are using intellectual concepts to point to that which is beyond conception. How can there be four when there isn't even one?


dmb says:
I think you both have a good point and they aren't really mutually exclusive points. I mean, each level of static quality is superior to the one below it precisely because it's more open to improvement. The intellectual level is considered to be superior to the social level because it is less static and more flexible. This upward movement toward greater freedom has its limits too of course. Without static patterns nothing could last and too much freedom leads to degeneracy and devolution. I mean, betterness has its static side too. I'd even say betterness can be applied within the fourth level so that we can weigh the relative merits of opposed intellectual patterns, such as we see in the rejection of SOM in favor of the MOQ. The basic idea that some things are better than others can be applied a million different ways. It guides the painter, the poet, the politician, the philosopher and the scientists. Hell, it guides us in the produce section of the grocery store too. Some philosophies are better than others, some cultures are better than others and some tomatoes are better than others.