[MF] reality: interactions or quality?

[Sam Norton]

I wrote about this on MD back in October 2001 - a post probably now best 
accessed through my blog: 
http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2005/08/wittgenstein-and-philosophy-of-love.html

but these were the conclusions:

1. Definitions are worse than useless in some contexts. Talk of love is one 
such.
2. If Wittgenstein is right, then we understand what a word means by seeing what 
is done with it.
3. The West systematically misunderstands the nature of religious belief.
4. Religious belief is not essentially propositional language, but functional 
language (it shapes our lives in a certain way).
5. The scientific outlook is emotionally defective (and the MOQ removes the 
defect).
6. If we want to understand the philosophy of love, the religious traditions are 
a very good place to start.

Conclusions which I'd still argue for.

Sam