[MD] the Romantic/Classical split

[John Carl]

Marsha,

I think you're on to something here.  But I don't agree that going from the
classic/romantic split to the dynamic/static was the key value of Lila
compared to ZAMM.

I do agree with the author, that Lila is the more important book,
philosophically.  But imo, it's because Lila fully encapsulates that
classic/romantic synthesis whereas ZAMM simply describes it.

In another thread, I mentioned to Craig that we can't logically prove
reality is good, but since it plainly is, this is a problem with logical
proof, not reality.  I think your spinning box sheds more light on the
subject, gets closer to what I feel is the right way of looking at things,
than I've read in countless meticulously logical arguments that I've come up
with.

So thanks for that.

John