>>>if you define quality as the
bent of the mind to make good out of bad, I buy it.
But if you define quality as something external to the
mind, I don't see it. It's a trap of sorts. It's clear
there is a bent towards goodness, but is that just an
interpretation of the mind? Again, if quality is
defined as the mind's bent towards goodness, it makes
sense. But I don't see a clear path to defining an
objective quality in the world when there is so much
evidence against that.<<<
Howerya Angus,
The notion that Quality has to be - or can be - pigeonholed into
"subjectivity" or "objectivity" is not valid, I think, precisely because
Quality not only unifies these two intellectual categories, but transcends
the whole mentality/metaphysics of subjects and objects altogether.
Quality is preintellectual; "the sign and the instrument" so to speak (in
that sense, "bent towards goodness" could be valid as a phenomemon of
Quality, but not "of mind")
- Oisín
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:32 BST