[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[MarshaV]

At 01:12 PM 11/29/2006, Ham wrote:

>Hi Marsha --
>
> > This was a very thoughtful article.  By the arguments
> > presented in this article, I might call myself a moral relativist.
> >
> > It also fits with my present thinking that morality is a binding
> > agent of static quality.
>
>I view the "self" (proprietary sense of value) as the free agent of its
>uncreated Source.  Could you explain in your own terms the meaning of
>"morality is a binding agent of static quality"?  And could you possibly
>explain it with minimal reference to patterns and levels?
>
>Thanks, Marsha.  I'd really like to understand this concept.
>

Hi Ham,

It's embarrassing, but I don't have a neat little explanation.  It's 
still a plaything.  It may be solid or vapor, I don't know yet.   I 
think it tumbled out with my products database idea from the 'Suicide 
vs. Solutions' thread.  Something like if it's not on the morality 
(problem vs solution) scale it falls away from its sq status and 
doesn't exist.  It's too early to explain more.  I don't think it's 
terribly original, but I find it aesthetically pleasing.

I view the "self" as a constellation of overlapping static quality 
that is ever changing.

If you want to ask a more specific question, I will try to answer it.

Marsha