Dear Scott, Marco and David B.,
Scott wrote 8/2 21:31 -0800:
'the source of the disagreement is in asking whether we are
discussing the values of the way in which one level "triumphs
over" the lower one, or discussing the nature of values within a
level.'
I don't think so. For me the values of (the way of) triumphing
over lower level patterns of values are exactly the same as (the
nature of) the (static) values within a level.
Static quality is essentially the value of ... being a stable
pattern, which implies preventing degeneration into a lower level
pattern of values and maintaining the static latch that keeps
that pattern of values on (or above) a specific level of Dynamic
Quality.
The lowest level of Dynamic Quality that is secured by the type
of static latch that is specific to a Q-level can be described as
a 'moral principle'. Marco's formulations are good candidates, I
think.
We should be careful however to distinguish between the LOWEST
level of DQ that is secured by a static Q-level and the HIGHEST
level of DQ it can reach. At a quick glance (I have little time
now) Marco's formulations don't seem to consistently do one or
the other.
I also think it is useful to distinguish between DESCRIPTIVE and
PRESCRIPTIVE laws of morality. It seems to me that the whole
concept of 'law' (as a way to describe a morality) presupposes
that we are looking at things from the intellectual level. I
don't believe in (objective) description, so (explicit)
prescription would be my ideal.
David, I have no time to search for Pirsig quotes now.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:51 BST