Re: MD quality-man made or natural?

From: August West (augustwestd@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 23:23:38 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD The Eudaimonic MoQ"

    Phyllis & Nic Nott,

         I think now, in hindsight, that my statement was
    poor. I agree with what Nic says except where it is
    stated that quality doesn't exist. Quality does exist
    in nature. What I was trying to say with my previous
    post is that quality is the fundamental basis of
    perception as Nic indicated. Who perciceves?.. An
    indiviual percieves. I estabished purpose as the
    determining scale to which an individual perceives
    quality because without purpose quality would be non
    existant; or useless, to an individual. Purpose and
    qualtity are inter-twinded, much in the same way that
    time and space are.
         I hope that this makes my last point more clear.
    -August

    --- phyllis bergiel <neilfl@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    > August:
    >
    > See J.P. Sartre and the crag from the view of the
    > farmer, developer and
    > hiker. It's phenomenology - but this is a SOM
    > distinction.
    >
    > MOQ quality requires both man (or a consciousness at
    > the level you describe)
    > and nature - the event of the two meeting.
    >
    > Phyllis
    >
    > > Hi Nic, in response to what you said on MOQ:
    > > > On the other hand if Iook at a tree or a
    > > > seascape the quality is always absolute , the
    > sea is
    > > > always perfect sea and trees are always perfect
    > > > trees . More accurately to natural things
    > quality
    > > > does not apply , they are perfectly what they
    > are
    > > > and could not be anything else .
    > >
    > > I try to look at quality as having a purpose; that
    > > purpose grades a level of quality and is also
    > > determined by a subjective quality. For an
    > example if
    > > I was camping in the woods and I needed a fire
    > because
    > > daylight was fading. I need a fire for warmth
    > > (quality) and light (quality). When I look for
    > wood
    > > I'm going to want dry twigs, medium sticks, and
    > logs
    > > that are dry and dead because that is what the
    > > particular purpose of the wood that I am seeking
    > > requires(quality). If I wanted a tree to make a
    > canoe
    > > out of it then I would look for other qualities;
    > the
    > > definition of a perfect tree for the purpose would
    > > change. Thoughts?
    > >
    > > -August
    > >
    > > --- nic nott <gnicgnostic@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    > > > As I understand it quality is being placed as
    > a
    > > > fundamental or the fundamental basis of
    > perception .
    > > > The definition of this quality being provided in
    > the
    > > > story of the essay . This definition seems
    > > > profoundly tied up with human concious
    > constructions
    > > > only . For instance I can read a book or watch a
    > > > film and I mentally grade them with levels of
    > > > quality . On the other hand if Iook at a tree or
    > a
    > > > seascape the quality is always absolute , the
    > sea is
    > > > always perfect sea and trees are always perfect
    > > > trees . More accurately to natural things
    > quality
    > > > does not apply , they are perfectly what they
    > are
    > > > and could not be anything else .
    > > > My question then is does this quality only
    > apply
    > > > to the perception of conciously constructed
    > things ?
    > > > I feel that quality is only reduced through the
    > > > filters of perception , the perfectly
    > enlightened
    > > > being would see the perfection in any essay and
    > > > equally always write the perfect essay . Quality
    > is
    > > > always perfect and so does not really exist .
    > > > I welcome any enlightenment in this matter.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > ---------------------------------
    > > > Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > > __________________________________
    > > Do you Yahoo!?
    > > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync
    > to Outlook(TM).
    > > http://calendar.yahoo.com
    > >
    > >
    > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > Mail Archives:
    > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > Nov '02 Onward -
    >
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > >
    > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the
    > instructions at:
    > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    >
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the
    > instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
    http://calendar.yahoo.com

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 01 2003 - 23:24:11 BST