Re: MD Metaphysics of Quality: An oxymoron?

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 21:50:39 BST

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD SOM and the soc/int distinction"

    Dear Nic & Pi,

    The reference might have been clearer if I had written 'THIS importance'.
    If the women who are able to participate in abstract discussions are less
    interested in the type of morality and philosophy that's discussed on this
    list than the men who are (a supposedly equal number), these discussions may
    not have enough practical relevance.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
    Van: nic nott
    Aan: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Verzonden: woensdag 11 juni 2003 18:37
    Onderwerp: Re: MD Metaphysics of Quality: An oxymoron?

    Wim Nusselder <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl> wrote:
     I wish there were more women who 'attend to important
    matters of morality and philosophy here on the forum', because the lack of
    them throws serious doubts (in my view) on their importance...

    The importance of women or matters of morality and philosophy ?
    Nic

    ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
    Van: "Pi" <pi@mideel.ath.cx>
    Aan: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Verzonden: woensdag 11 juni 2003 4:28
    Onderwerp: Re: MD Metaphysics of Quality: An oxymoron?

    On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 11:20:00PM +0200, Wim Nusselder wrote:
    > Not a response that conforms to the normal pattern in this discussion
    > group... My post must have been outdated and superfluous (also given the
    > extra time you will need for fatherhood). Unlike Johnny I'm not a great
    fan
    > of traditional static patterns of fatherhood as he described them 10 Jun
    > 2003 19:11:59 +0000... I wish there were more women who 'attend to
    important
    > matters of morality and philosophy here on the forum', because the lack of
    > them throws serious doubts (in my view) on their importance...

    I wish there were more women who actively take part in these type of
    discussionstoo, but I would not let that absense cast doubts about their
    importance! 99% of the people I know, male and female, are not involved in
    matters of philosphical thought and yet they have earned my respect over the
    time. I personally may not respect their rare philosophical comments
    (because I dismiss them quicly), but yet I consider the people important in
    their own way.

    I guess the question is `what is importance?'. I think importance is nothing
    other than Quality. So when we say that someone does not have importance, we
    are essentially saying `Quality does not have this person'. :)

    BTW, I also doubt the value of the static patterns of fatherhood or even
    marriage.

    - Pi

    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 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 22:32:39 BST