[MD] Bitterness over Betterness

[X Acto]

marsha:
I think the same approach can be taken towards freedom.  First, there's the 
ineffable, Ultimate freedom of following DQ.  I believe this is what Dan is 
pointing to when he presents RMP's quote "To the extent that one's behavior is 
controlled by static patterns of quality is without choice.  But to the extent 
that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is 
free."  Second, there is the static, ego-based freedom that thinks itself 
chooses between this or that.  -  Personally, I think that an event has multiple 
interconnected causes and conditions which in turn have multiple interconnected 
causes and conditions, &etc., &etc., &etc.  It may be correct to think that an 
individual participates within the  'multiple causes and conditions', but to say 
WE CHOOSE is totally self-centered; it's illusion and not very useful.    



Ron:
All static quality is an illusion, all dynamic quality is chaos. Is chaos 
freedom?

If all static patterns migrate toward chaos, what are we saying?

If all static patterns are a migration toward freedom, what are we saying?

which consequences are better and more consistant?

to say that they migrate or evolve toward betterness has more meaning, more 
explanitory
power
than they evolve toward chaos.

don't you think?

thnx Marsha




On Apr 26, 2011, at 3:38 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> Greetings Ham,
> 
> The 'unknowable, undefinable undividable Goodness' that I spoke of in outside 
>of the language's ability to explain it, because language seeks to divide, 
>describe and define.  With language the subject and object are created.  I 
>suggest you might say there seem to be two types of goodness/betterness.  There 
>is the static, measurable, judgmental type which is associated with a subject 
>(ego/individual), and there is an ineffable 
>Goodness(interconnectedness/nonduality).  
>
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Ham Priday wrote:
> 
>> Marsha, Ron, Dan, and All --
>> 
>> 
>> "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]
>> 
>> [Marsha to Ron]:
>>> I see the world being composed of conventional meaning,
>>> AND unknowable, undefinable & undividable Goodness.
>> 
>> [Ron to Marsha]:
>>> Here's the difference Marsha,
>>> I see the world as being composed of nothing but meaning
>>> while you see it as having no meaning at all.
>>> and that is a huge difference in our world outlooks
>>> so we are going to disagree about stuff like that.
>> 
>> [Ron to Dan]:
>>> Dynamic Quality is best understood as "betterness"
>> 
>> [Dan]:
>>> 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?
>> 
>> It is obvious to anyone reviewing the recent posts (re: the story of "me" and 
>>Free Will) that Goodness, Quality, and Betterness have led to confusion and 
>>rancor in interpreting the MoQ.  The author himself was contradictory when he 
>>introduced Quality in ZMM.  "You know what it is, yet you don't know what it 
>>is," he said.
>> 
>> His logic went downhill from there:
>> 
>> "Some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality.  But when 
>>you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all 
>>goes poof! There's nothing to talk about.  But if you can't say what Quality is, 
>>how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even exists?  If no one 
>>knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it really does exist. What 
>>else are the grades based on?  Why else would people pay fortunes for some 
>>things and throw others in the trash pile?"
>> 
>> But what is missing in this analysis, as I think Dan recognizes, is the 
>>observing subject without which there would be no Goodness to experience, no 
>>Quality to grade, and no Betterness to aspire to.  For none of these aesthetic 
>>attributes exists outside the realm of conscious sensibility.  All goodness is 
>>subjective, that is, relative to the cognizant self who measures it.  To say 
>>that the universe is good and going on better means that things are going well 
>>for YOU, not that the universe is "made of" Quality.
>> 
>> Of course, reducing the individual to "interrelated quality patterns", as 
>>Pirsig does, makes it difficult to understand how we have the capability to 
>>realize goodness in our relational world.  Nor does it help matters to insist 
>>that we are "composed of value", which isn't true either.  We are sensible of, 
>>drawn to, the value of otherness.
>> But the beauty of a melody cannot be realized by a tone-deaf person, nor can 
>>the quality of a painting be appreciated by a blind man.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, by doing away with subjects and objects, Pirsig had no choice 
>>but to posit Quality as an undefined entity unto itself.  This not only runs 
>>counter to epistemology, it renders the MoQ incomprehensible to anyone with a 
>>logical mind.
>> 
>> With sincere apologies to all Pirsig loyalists,
>> --Ham
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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