[MF] reality: interactions or quality?

[Kevin Perez]

Marsha,
  
Thanks for your response.
  
>>> Define the smell of a fish?
  
<snip>
  
>> 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?
  
I'm saying a definition has to mean something.
  
We're talking about the meaning of the Metaphysics of Quality, right?
And whether or not it answers the question, "what is quality?"
  
>> 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.
  
I take it that by "as assigned by" you mean "as measured by."  It's a
subtle point but I think it's worth mentioning because of the distinction
within the Metaphysics of Quality between "the source of all things" and
"the measure of all things."
  
You say, "If they know the MOQ, it will have value."  I was thinking more
along the lines of people who understand what the Metaphysics of
Quality says but who nevertheless don't buy it for one reason or another.
  
According to the Metaphysics of Quality, is it possible to have a clear
and correct understanding of the Metaphysics of Quality yet find little or
no value in it?
  
>> 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.
  
Within the Metaphysics of Quality, is "Quality is the source of all things"
not an absolute?
   
  
Kevin

		
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
 PhotoMail  - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.