From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 22:58:38 GMT
Pete:
>Hello Steve,
> Your 'other' thread had you miss this too. Have you anything to respond here?
>
> Steve: Platt and all,
>
> What is the resolution in ZAMM of the issue of why different papers get
> different grades when graded by different professors?
>
> Peter: Profs. Grade up those papers that agree with their own patterns of
> value. You notice that which you value from the background aesthetic
> continuum.
Steve:
I like the language you chose (though I'm not qualified to like it? I need
credentials???), but I hesitate to comment further because based on other
people's comments on my understanding of the levels, I have learned that I
tend to put the wrong emphasis on "that which you value." I have to think
about it, say less, and listen more to try to understand the distinction
between SOM and MOQ.
>
> How is this relative evaluation reconciled with absolute good in the moq?
>
> Peter: The absolute is not defined; it is absolute in that is IS.
>
> Are some of the professors simply wrong while another is right about the
> paper's worth?
>
> Peter: Rhetoric is the static representation of spoken language. Spoken
> language is capable of dynamic interaction. Not speaking at all and being with
> the All is better still. There is no such thing as wrong or right - there is
> better and worse. Therefore, some papers are better than others and that can
> be recognised by a sophisticated evolved pattern of values that just happens
> to be a Human being with a history of experiences of its own.
Steve:
As far as papers being right, wrong, better, or worse, I would rather not
comment because as I said I need to think more about categorizing and
evaluating such patterns of value.
But the question "Is there such a thing as right or wrong?" in general is an
important question for me. I think that most people (99%+?) think in terms
of moral absolutes or in terms of rules that should be followed under all
circumstances. Either explicit or implicit in such a view is a "God" that
ultimately judges right and wrong. The rules come from somewhere outside.
These people don't generally claim to know all the rules, but they believe
that there are static rules out there to be discovered and followed that
aren't merely right for a particular culture but right for all under all
circumstances. I came to reject such an idea of an absolute, because it did
not fit my experience of the world.
What Pirsig's books and others as well as this list have gotten me to think
about is an absolute that is dynamic rather than static. I think that there
actually is an absolute right action for each person for each particular
circumstance, though perhaps no rules may be generalized from these
particulars. (I think the zen term for this right action is "non-action".)
In other words, there is an absolute but it is dynamic rather than static.
This Dynamic Morality is defined by what one does who is free of static
patterns--one who is truly free because he lets himself be ruled by Dynamic
Quality alone. It is the opposite of degeneracy. The possibility of such a
liberation is important for me.
Steve
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 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 12 2002 - 22:49:47 GMT