Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:21:51 +0100
Dear Richard, James and the LS
Trying to write a principle of quality is like trying to balance
something on a highly sensitive scale. A little too far one way and it's
too vague, a little too far the other and it's too specific. But still,
I think it's getting better.
Richard wrote:
> As for the definition of Quality: The idea of "Quality" is a way of
> referring both to existence being a single closed system which is eternally
> alive, and to its living aspect in the present moment.
>
> (We could see the first part of the above definition as referring to
> Quality's static element, and the latter to its Dynamic.)
>
WRT the way this is phrased: why not just say Quality is existence?
Saying that the idea "refers" to existence is like saying that the idea
of a "store" refers to a place where you can buy things.
My main problem with this definition though is similar to my problem
with Platt's transcendent and immanent bit. It's not that it's exactly
wrong but it's confusing. First off if you want to refer to Dynamic and
static quality within the definition of Quality then why not make it
clear that you're doing so by using the words "Dynamic" and "static" in
the principle? Second, there is another independent principle for
describing the Dynamic-static split so it's redundant to mention it
twice. And thirdly it's misleading. It implies that this split is the
only way to divide Quality and that's not true. Quality can be divided
into Dynamic and static, subjects and objects, classic and romantic. The
Dynamic-static split might be the best one, but it isn't the only one.
James wrote
> My own offering would be that Quality is the *goal* of existence. In
> other words the missing link between "Quality" and "reality" is
> teleological. Ends arise from causes; subjects arise from objects; the
> mind is born of matter.
>
If Quality is the goal of existence it implies that Quality is something
other than existence and that existence is not Quality. Is that what you
intend?
For what it's worth my first three principles currently stand as
follows:
Quality
Quality is reality. Quality is the ethical principle of the good. Thus
reality is a moral order. Quality, like reality, is known to us as
awareness. As such, it is impossible to define.
Value.
Value is a synonym for Quality. Value encompasses what are usually known
as causation and substance. Value is neither a subject nor an object but
what creates subjects and objects. A value-based metaphysics explains
reality better than one that divides reality into an inner subjective
realm and an outer objective realm because it integrates subjects and
objects, mind and body, science and art and many other anomalies. Value
is understood through the sense of value.
Dynamic Quality and static quality.
The best way to divide Quality is into patterns of Dynamic and static
value or experience. Dynamic Quality is pure unfiltered experience.
Static quality is stable distinguishable experience. Dynamic Quality
creates the world; static quality preserves it. Dynamic Quality is more
pleasing than static quality. Dynamic Quality is more moral than static
quality.
The rest are on the website
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670/moq.html
Diana
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com 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 - 16:42:37 CEST