Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:58:59 +0100
Diana wrote:
>
> However if you think that defining the taste of chocolate is a worthwhile
> intellectual pursuit then go ahead, and good luck.
Diana listen to me! I'm not trying to define the biological experience
of chocolate taste! I'm trying to define the subjects of the Quality Event.
I think you're trying to deny the existence of the subjects and objects
that are the result of each and every Quality Event. I think you're stuck
on: "Everything is value".
> Okay, the point is not to outsmart other people. The idea of a chess strategy
> is to test the rationality of your own ideas. If you can find a flaw in them
> then that's because there *is* a flaw in them and you need to go back to the
> drawing board and rethink the whole thing.
Or that someone else rethinks or modifies it to get rid of the flaw. This is
exactly the way rational scientific work is done today and much of the reason
why Phaedrus doubted its use. The difference today is that we (hopefully) won't
try to explain irrational phenomenon by rational means.
Something like:
MoQ grant us the serenity to accept the things we can not define
Courage to define the things we can
And the wisdom to know the difference.
> On the contrary it is easy to see that a human is biological value and
> designer fashion is social value. Any reasonable person can see the rationale
> behind this, even if they don't accept it. (A computer might not find it so
> easy though.)
Hey Doug, I'm a computer too. ;-)
Magnus
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:04 CEST