Hi Paul
Allow me to try and help you out of your dilema.
It seems your problem is that you aren't looking at the concept of
Quality discussed in ZAMM as much as you are its effects, which *are*
subjective. As Phaedrus says to Rigel in LILA: "people don't disagree
on Quality, they disagree about the objects it's thought to inhere." (or
something close to that). The point is, Quality exists beyond subjects
and objects, mind and matter, sensible and intelligible. In fact,
Quality creates both the subject and pbject. It is an event. I don't
need to go into depth concerning the reasoning behind this, as you can
reread ZAMM as well as I, (the chataqua in question overlaps the
mountain climbing) but I think if you look this over, you may find your
answer.
Kilian
P.S. I liked the pile analogy glove and I understand your point about
the coin -- I think the problem was my poor metaphor...
P.P.S. Is the U.S.A. / British attack on Irag earlier this evening
morally sound?
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:45 BST