Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:24:45 +0100
Doug.
It was a well-documented piece you presented on Phædrus' deliberations if
Quality could be defined or not (It deserves a place in the "Writings"
column!), and this is no criticism of your basics. However, the Quality of
ZMM was still in a very preliminary phase; more like a mystical entity that
could not be defined without being destroyed. When Phædrus of LILA appears
the MOQ is fully developed and his considerations were more over if he
should present his complete metaphysics (yes, it is a way of defining
quality). It had never been done before that he knew, and LILA's reception
show that his fretting was founded, it has not exactly been embraced by the
establishment. The efforts of the squad to define what belongs where -
systematically - is a different matter. Strangely, this I have never felt
the need for, but I am not the least against it.
The "ugliness" I refer to is not exactly defining quality, but the mess
that subject/objectivity is plagued with. Perhaps I have felt that by not
keeping the basics of the MOQ pure it is easy to slip into the very same
mess. I still maintain that "The Metaphysics of..." belongs to the
Intellect and demands nothing BUT definitions, but "..Quality" cannot be
defined. Seen from each level, EVERYTHING is its jurisdiction - good or
bad. This creates the SOM problem of "evil" which the MOQ solves (it does
not remove the evil, but an explanation is a great relief).
Bo
-- 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 - 16:41:56 CEST