Hi Mark, Elephant and Group:
I hate to disagree with a newcomer to the discussion, Mark, but
must point out some quotations from Lila that appear to contradict
your statement: “Nowhere in Lila does he say the same about
Good being identical with Quality (and Morality and Value)”
Chapter 9:
After many months of thinking about it, he was left with a reward of
two terms: Dynamic good and static good, which became the
basic division of his emerging Metaphysics of Quality.
Chapter 15:
That's quality! Particularly the sexual functions. From the cells'
point of view sex is pure Dynamic Quality, the highest Good of all.
Chapter 24:
This last, the Dynamic-static code, says what's good in life isn't
defined by society or intellect or biology. What's good is freedom
from domination by any static pattern, but that freedom doesn't
have to be obtained by the destruction of the patterns themselves.
Chapter 29:
The Metaphysics of Quality is a continuation of the mainstream of
twentieth-century American philosophy. It is a form of pragmatism,
of instrumentalism, which says the test of the true is the good. It
adds that this good is not a social code or some intellectualized
Hegelian Absolute. It is direct everyday experience.
I think it’s correct to conclude that in the MOQ
Quality=Value=Morality=Good.
To Elephant I’d like to point out that the quote from Chapter 24
appears to question your assertion that the moral imperative to be
deduced from Lila is “be unselfish.” Rather, the message seems
to be, “Live and let live.”
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:58 BST