To David L. Thomas, Struan Hellier
Hello
David wrote:
>
>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".
Hi Dave
You raise a good point here, but what do you mean by "chaos"? And how is
this evil in Pirsig's MoQ? Doesn't evil have to be defined? Can chaos be
defined and still be chaos? Is exclusive stasis exclusive definition? Seems
so to me. The MoQ is relatively moral according to the four static quality
levels but absolutely moral Dynamically. Chaos and stasis are the same in a
relative fashion while Dynamic morality would seem to be absolutely free.
I am not familiar enough with Popper to discuss his work.
Dave wrote:
>
>[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
First, I would like to rebut Struan's comment. What is an idea? And how do
we intuit the goodness or badness of an idea right away? A scientist doesn't
work this way. We all learn through our mistakes and so a bad idea can teach
just as much as a good idea if it shows value. An idea implies some new
arrangement, some new way of seeing something old. That is relative. But the
act of having an idea is not relative. That is Dynamic. In no way can we
label this new idea good or bad by intuiting it immediately unless you mean
relevancy as good and irrelevancy as bad. But intuition has already sorted
the irrelevant for an idea to arise. I do agree we sense Quality. The whole
universe senses Quality and that is what ties us together.
With Dave L. Thomas I will agree. We are all both right and wrong, all the
time. I also thank you both for your comments.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
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