On Sep 13, 2013, at 8:23 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Marsha: > Sorry there seems to be too many hidden assumptions left out of your post for > me to make sense of it. The only thing I might offer to negate the charge of > nihilism is that static quality is not annihilated. Static quality is > conventionally real. > > > [Ron] > But it neglects the explanation of WHY and HOW static quality exists, > conventionally or > otherwise. > RMP is definitly trying to account for and explain the hanging together of > experience and DQ as "betterness" > explains movement and why experience changes. "not this-not that" seems to > fail in this regard. > > I therefore suspect that "not this-not that" is contextual towards > dialectical opposition in arguementation and to > swap it out for betterness in "Lila" nullifies half the book, everything he > says about preference and evolution > is just thrown out. > > Perhaps you can explain how "not this-not that" fits together to explain > beauty and attraction and why some > things are better than others. Because I can't seem to see how that works. > > thnx > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
