Theo Schramm (theoschramm@hotmail.com)
Thu, 2 Jul 1998 18:36:17 +0100
Greetings,
Well one leaves for a few days and all of a sudden is engulfed in a
morass of new postings with little chance of getting through them all.
Fortunately the task is made easier by the fact that many of them
emanate from the same source and require little effort. Glove, your
postings are fundamentally and irredeemably confused. Could you not
perhaps put a little effort into understanding the metaphysics of
Quality and hence the purpose of this group before contributing? We have
had excellent criticisms in the past (Struan, Donny etc.) and the best
and most valuable have come from those with a good grasp of our position
and consequently the knowledge to make us think. You should also be
aware that your position is not original or new and some study of
Subjectivism might help clarify what you are trying to say. I could sum
up all your postings in one short paragraph, but I won't simply because
I'm not interested (on this forum) in discussing their content.
Back to the issue of the D-S split and I find myself in agreement with
Jonathan and Bo, and Diana. If I might explain how. The bone of
contention is whether DQ is change for the better or simply all change.
Jonathan's statement "that DQ itself has no morality," seems to be the
stumbling block and yet from his previous comments I suspect we can all
agree. DQ has its own morality, ie freedom. From a DQ point of view all
change is good and all things static are bad. In this respect Bo and
Diana are correct when they say that DQ must be change for the better.
This is not quite a tautology if we see that 'better' is level
dependant. Jonathan is right in that EVALUATION of DQ is already in a SQ
context and he is further correct in stating (after Pirsig) that sitting
on a hot stove is placing ourselves in a low Quality situation. It is
DQ, but from OUR perspective it is change for the worse. From a DQ
perspective it is change and thus 'a priori' (note the proper use Glove)
better.
I suggest (as Magnus rightly puts it) that DQ is change and SQ the
result of change. The better 'aspect' need not be in the definition
because in any given context what is 'better' for one level may be
'worse' for another and what is 'better' for DQ may be 'worse' for
ourselves. It is all a question of perspective and level interaction.
Sorry if this has been said before. I'm a bit behind in my reading.
Theo
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST