At 9:08 AM -0600 11/18/99, Dan Glover wrote:
>jc, often times what we see in others is a mirror of ourselves. Perhaps
>you should be asking someone else these questions?
Thanks Dan,
You're right. It comes out better if I ask myself the question ...
>Maybe instead of being arrogant myself, I am the victim of arrogance.
>Somebody arrogantly pronounced to me that: "we will never understand
>nature of >reality or nature of self" and ever since the idea has got
>stuck in my head, >stopping me from trying a little harder."
>
> Who did this to me?
I went in there and replaced all the "you" with "me" and it came out truer
the second time. Since it was truer, this second iteration is a higher
quality statement. Which leads me to conclude that Truth = Quality. I'll
have to consider this some more.
On a deeper level, I aknowledge the accuracy of the observation that my
dialogue is with myself. Even when I try carefully to follow, somebody
else's system of thought, I find myself comparing and sorting it and
putting it into place with everything else I got already in my brain and it
gets distorted. When I say "You", it's because there are these two guys in
my brain having this dialogue. One I call "me" and the other I call "you".
But all my words are from me and about me.
<snip>
>jc, are you able to define Quality? Is anyone? If so, you are correct
>and I concede your point. If not, then do you concede mine? :)
I never tried to define Quality before. But allow me a small hubris here.
Isn't Quality simply that which defines everything?
Therefore, a question of how to define quality leads one into a logical
construct called "strange loop" and thus Quality is definitionally
undefinable. The concept exposes a genetic defect in reason.
We can't truly define infinity because how can you put boundaries around
forever? But yet we find "that which continues forever" _is_ a
satisfactory definition and thus I don't see why we can't accept "that
which defines everything" as a definition for Quality.
Comments?
<snip>
>> (and technically, all we are capable of placing value on is always all
>> there ever is)
>
>jc, everything is an allegory. However, in placing value we define
>reality while Dynamic Quality cannot be defined or conceptualized in any
>fashion. So I both agree and disagree with you here.
I should say all human knowledge is allegory Allegory underlies all intellect.
If Dynamic Quality cannot be defined or conceptualized in any fashion, then
what are we talking about?
I mean, putting the letters together is at least one fashion that
D-Y-N-A-M-I-C Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y can be conceptualized.
Recognizing that the concept represents reality beyond our
conceptualization is also part of the concept we fashion when we discuss
the term "Dynamic Quality".
Conceptualization is closely related to allegory. (Whew - this could get
dangerous - a metaphor is like a ...) The statement above which says
"everything is allegory" could just as easily read "everything is concept"
and then it would contradict the following statement that "Dynamic Quality
can't be conceptualized" (is not a concept)
>> (snip)
>jc, in fact, I find that I often agree with David B. as well and find
>his posts well thought and intriguing. However,
>in this case I do not agree. It may seem a minor semantic disagreement
>really
>but there are major underlying implications.
I believe you. I'm interested in what those are. I remember the phrase,
"unconscious metaphysics tend to be bad metaphysics". What exactly are
the implications that underlie?
I also agree that what are termed "semantic differences" can be crucial.
Stick to your guns Dan.
>
>jc, from Ken Clark's wonderful "Some notes on Quality" email of 11/15/99
>(thanks Ken!):
The distinction between "morals" and "moral codes" caught my eye as the
point of my departure from orthodoxy and I think solves the conflict.
I did disagree with the statement that Quality and Morality are the same,
but I see now how I was confusing morality on the any one level with the
overall concept of morality as "that which differentiates between good and
bad". And thus I can easily accept that Quality=Morality" with an expanded
definition of morality.
I'm going to have to work on Truth vs Quality still...
jc
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST