Re: MD Metaphysics of Quality: An oxymoron?

From: Pi (
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 03:28:44 BST

  • Next message: johnny moral: "MD James's inversion"

    On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 11:20:00PM +0200, Wim Nusselder wrote:
    > Not a response that conforms to the normal pattern in this discussion
    > group... My post must have been outdated and superfluous (also given the
    > extra time you will need for fatherhood). Unlike Johnny I'm not a great fan
    > of traditional static patterns of fatherhood as he described them 10 Jun
    > 2003 19:11:59 +0000... I wish there were more women who 'attend to important
    > matters of morality and philosophy here on the forum', because the lack of
    > them throws serious doubts (in my view) on their importance...

    I wish there were more women who actively take part in these type of discussionstoo, but I would not let that absense cast doubts about their importance! 99% of the people I know, male and female, are not involved in matters of philosphical thought and yet they have earned my respect over the time. I personally may not respect their rare philosophical comments (because I dismiss them quicly), but yet I consider the people important in their own way.

    I guess the question is `what is importance?'. I think importance is nothing other than Quality. So when we say that someone does not have importance, we are essentially saying `Quality does not have this person'. :)

    BTW, I also doubt the value of the static patterns of fatherhood or even marriage.

    - Pi

    One man's constant is another man's variable.
    MOQ.ORG  -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward  -
    MD Queries -
    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 02:32:05 BST