> On Nov 27, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dan comments: > The term 'dynamic event' does not exist in Lila. The Quality event of > ZMM is left behind. In addition, the term Dynamic Quality is > consistently capitalized in Lila for a reason, or so I always thought, > while static quality is not, again, for a reason. What Doorly appears > to be doing is lumping both terms together under the umbrella of > Quality, which in essence is correct, but the way he's approaching it > ultimately leads to defining the Good. > > Anyway, I'll stop there to see what anyone thinks before and if > proceeding further. It really is a great book, btw, though I do not > happen to agree with some of Doorly's points,
Ron replies: Although I have not read Doorly, I can't help but to chime in on the topic of defining the Good. As said before, once we define SOM as the act, or the attempt To define the Good, we open Up the doors for anti-intellectual Claims. As it seems Doorly is trying to convey Art is the act of making meaning from Experience. We must carefully consider this before we attempt to define SOM. Thanks Dan! 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
