[MD] Free Will

[X Acto]

Hi Ron,

What is wrong with using both of those terms as Pirsig originally did
when describing Dynamic Quality.

In other words, what is wrong with 'undefined betterness'?



Dave,
I don't know, nothing as far as I am concerned but Dan sure seems to have
a problem with that. I have been argueing for undefined betterness from the
begining but Dan doesent seem to think so, how can you have a philosophic 
discussion
rwith someone who claims that if you disagree with them you are disagreeing with 
the MoQ?
-Ron





On 25/04/2011, at 12:44 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> Mary,
> DQ must have some sort of static meaning to be useful.
> This meaning, is both, undefined and an elementary unit of ethics.
> Betterness is the closest we can ever get to the understanding
> of the basic meaning of DQ. It has greater explanitory power
> than a strictly undefined meaning or no meaning for that fact.
>
> -Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com>
> To: "moq_discuss at moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Cc: "moq_discuss at moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Sun, April 24, 2011 6:23:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
>
> Ron?  You are saying that DQ is "an elementary unit of ethics upon which all
> right and wrong can be based"?
>
> I got from the quote that betterness is not DQ but an initial response to DQ.
> Isn't that different?
>
>
> 'So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, is an
> ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of reality 
create
> life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so because it is
> 'better' and that this definition of 'betterness'- this beginning response to
> Dynamic Quality- is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and 
wrong
> can be based.(LILA, p 161)
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2011, at 10:07 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mary:
>> What do you use it for?
>>
>> Ron:
>> an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be 
>based.(LILA,
>>
>> p 161)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:19 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> To say that DQ is strictly nonconceptual is to say that DQ is strictly
>>> meaningless
>>> and does not explain anything. It is rendered useless.
>>
>>
>>> Andre:
>>> I am reluctant to 'understand' DQ as 'betterness'.
>>
>> [Mary]
>>> Agree, Andre.  Betterness is a static pattern of value.
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>
> 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
>
> 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
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