[MF] reality: interactions or quality?

MarshaV marshalz at charter.net
Wed Feb 15 23:34:03 PST 2006


At 09:58 PM 2/15/2006, Kevin wrote:
>
>I'd say the definition is pretty straight forward for people who know what a
>fish is.  I suspect they'd say something like the smell of a fish is how a
>fish smells.

Are you saying it is based on experience?

>
>If we ask people who know what the Metaphysics of Quality is to tell us
>whether or not the Metaphysics of Quality is valuable, should we expect
>everyone to give us the same answer?

If they know the MOQ, it will have value.  The degree of value, as 
assigned by an individual, will be subjective.

>
>What does this say about the Metaphysics of Quality?  And what does
>this say about the MOQ's fundamental premise that Quality is the
>source of all things?

It says to me that Quality (value) is the source of all things.

>
>Is the MOQ whatever you like it to be or is there something absolute
>about it?
>

Holy Mackerel!!!  The word <absolute> smells as fishy as the word <THE>.

Can you know anything is absolute?  Is not everything in a state of change?

There is a moral structure within the MOQ.


Marsha





More information about the Moq_Focus mailing list