At 02:08 PM 5/21/2007, you wrote: >Hi Marsha -- > > > Everything is water. Would you agree that some water > > is better than other water? > >A clear, lucid analogy. And you're absolutely right, Marsha. > >I get categorized as an SOM hanger-on precisely because the MoQers don't >understand this. Two conditions are necessary to evaluate anything: > >1. The evaluating agent (i.e., subject) must be separated from the object >experienced. . > >2. The value must be relative to the subject within a range of >possibilities. > >If the universe (objective reality) is perfect goodness, everthing in it is >good (moral?). That would make valuation meaningless, as well as a >"valuistic" obsever. > >Instead, the universe is amoral, affording a variety of value possibilities >relative to the observer. And the essence of one's experience -- the being >of his/her reality -- is determined by the value choices made in life. > >This relational system is called Existence. Epistemologically, it is >"being-aware" of Value. > >Thanks for a simple but effective analogy. > >Essentially yours, >Ham >
Ham, I read the water analogy in the book 'ART versus NONART: Art Out of Mind' by Tsion Avital. I didn't note the page number and can't find it. But I didn't think of this analogy as a trick, but tried it as a kind of thought experiment using Quality and "betterness" instead of 'water'. Quality should be left undefined. To equate Quality to the words 'good' and 'betterness', with their positive connotations, does not make sense to me. Morality needs to be determined relative to its context. I don't know how it could it be otherwise? Thanks for commenting. Marsha 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
