In a message dated 12/27/01 11:14:46 AM GMT Standard Time, struan@clara.co.uk
writes:
<< Yes but, Squonk, I did not say that quality is not of interest and
therefore your posting has no bearing whatsoever upon what I actually
wrote. Once again, I thoroughly agree that value is fundamental to what
we do.
>>
Dear Struan,
Value is fundamental; and those who explore the nature of value, i.e. those i
held up as excelling in there art, enjoy the insight that value is prior to
conceptualising.
This is of vital importance and you cannot see it because your static
education, the product of SOM, blinds you to it.
Before today you have rejected SOM.
You reject it because you suggest it would not work as a metaphysics.
The list of philosophers who implicitly or explicitly work within the SOM
paradigm is long indeed; your rejection of this does not alter the position
one jot.
Let us have a definition of Quality out of you Struan?
Dick Swiveller, in the Old curiosity shop, experienced as his debtors grew
ever more numerous; travelling options run out the more poor relations you
make.
All the best,
Squonk.
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 - 16:01:43 BST