Squonk, you say, "Everything is conscious in my view...a
>mathematician does what a cricket bat does only more
>Dynamically: Respond to IT.
>Quality is IT.
>Everything is Quality.
>Everything is conscious."
According to you, Everything has asthetic value (which is how you define
quality elsewhere), and one is supposed to expand "rationality towards its
aesthetic source" in order to find the unifying social guide.
If EVERYTHING has asthetic value, how can one use astheticism as a guide for
anything? Without a process of differintiation, how can pure astheticism act
as any kind of source of unification?
Certainly, you can say "pick the route with more quality." But when
individual views of the primary attributes and qualities of Quality differ
so hotly, what asthetic sense is to select which is supreme?
Without pure s/o rationality, there is no method for divining proper action
or resolution to conflict within a society.
High minded as your rhetoric sounds, you are merely repeating the useless
advice of a thousand medicine men and a million hippies: "Why don't we all
just get along?"
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:30 BST