Dear Colleague,
I would argue that if bacteria destroys its host, there is no quality - by destroying its host the bacteria destroys itself as well. If the bacteria and the host live in harmony, possibly so. It is similar to the difference between responsibly harvesting lumber for houses, furniture, and pulp, as opposed to stripping a forest bare. It isn't the "what" (e.g. cutting down trees) that defines quality but the "how" that seems to make the difference.
Regards,
The Bard
----- Original Message -----
From: Cwhite6248@aol.com
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: MD and MF
Personal belief about the equality of positive and negative value in understnding Quality:
Yes, I think that....
To the bacteria that infects the organism, the host is of great value and quality.
Subjectivity creates pertinance. Through pertinance is assigned positive or negtive value to quality. Quality just is relationship. It is often asked simply "what are its qualities?" Much easier to see reality without the mindal attachment to definition and then subquently choose the definition you are aiming at and proceed accordingly. And Oh by the way I would even appreciate someone saying Bullshit , even, just to know that any posting has gotten through. <----new here and havent seen evidence that my postings are actually being poosted....Thanks
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 - 16:01:41 BST