Cory Struan
The question is:
> 'What makes good, good and bad, bad.'
Popper siting Moore suggests that Moore's position; "that "good" in the moral
sense cannot be defined in "naturalistic terms" is proper and if this is true
then we are not looking for definitions of good and bad but rather some other
way of determining them.
Cory suggests there is only one bad:
> there is only one perceived evil, exclusive stasis.
I would suggest that,except for the starting and ending moment, there is at
least two main catagories of bad under the MoQ, statsis and chaos. In the
interim, moral choices that are good are balanced on the edge between these
two extremes. Those choices that assure stable patterns while improving their
freedom are good, those that don't are bad. Nor can we or should we attempt to
define freedom in "naturalistic terms".
[Cory]> When we first have an idea we have no clue if it is a good idea or a
bad idea. Only in retrospection is that idea determined as good or bad. That
is intellectualizing."
[Struan] > This is simply not right. We intuit whether an idea is good or bad
> immediately. We sense quality.
You're both right and wrong. I agree with Struan that MoQ posits that we sense
quality and intuit it's goodness or badness. Unfortunately our experience
indicates that sensing is fallable. It would seem that this sensing is most
often mediated though our "individual frames of references" which are four
static levels of value that often have conflicting means and ends. So I also
agreed with Cory, in the sense that some kind of critical argumentation and
selection goes on but I'm at a loss to suggests to you [or me] how it works on
each or any level at the "cutting edge of reality." I'm not sure Pirsig does either.
DLT
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:12 BST