Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:59:01 +0100
Hi Doug, Diana and Squad
Doug Renselle wrote:
>
> Magnus Berg wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > What I lack in the principle is that DQ isn't always good. War,
> > cancer, lost love are all results of DQ.
> >
> > Magnus
> Magnus,
>
> But this is human-centric. War is not in DQ-perspective bad. Cancer
> may be an attempt by DQ on DNA to improve the genome, or extend the
> lifetime of Homo sapiens. Often, more mature and exciting love
> eventually replaces lost love.
>
> If you say DQ is moral AND immoral, regardless how high we scale the
> intellect of the sentient considering DQ's morality, then you are
> asserting an uncertainty principle. I agree.
Yes, I'm saying that DQ is moral AND immoral. I thought that didn't
got through enough in the principle, but I feel good about Diana's
addendum to the DQ-SQ-principle "Neither static nor Dynamic Quality
can survive without the other.".
And you're right, we can't decide whether a dynamic change is good
or bad, because we are, as you say, of finite intellect. War, cancer,
lost love, the holocaust and such things only seem bad at first
glance.
Magnus
-- 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 - 16:42:38 CEST