-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MarshaV Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic
At 11:00 AM 8/30/2007, Ron wrote: >which I interpret to mean static value and dynamic value are differing >types of value. >Value or quality is an umbrella term to cover many meanings. The >mistake I see is when one places static value before subjects and >objects in lieu of dynamic value. >I believe doing this gives a false interpretation of a moral universe. [Marsha] Hi Ron, That's why I like to reference Quality, which is both Dynamic and static. Quality (Dynamic and static) is dynamic. I could add that experience is process which is Quality. Differentiation is process which is Quality. Or I could just say you had to be there... I would also like to remind you that I didn't suggest s/o should be dropped. I stated, 'This s/o dualistic point-of-view is sometimes useful for solving problems in the way that we do, but still not reality.' We no longer set up problems from the pov that the sun and planets revolve around the earth. We no longer set up problems from the pov that the earth is flat. And I can imagine a day when this new worldview alters the way we hypothesize scientific problems. Isn't it already true that Science understands that the observation process influences the experiment? And aren't time and space much more complicated than we presently understand? [Ron] I was generally refering to a loose group without naming names, I think you and I correspond closely with our theories. I'm just making some observations and pointing out possible "stuckness" points in the MOQ. It's still the best thing going in my opinion and I'm not knocking it, but if I see a hole or a contradiction or discrepancy I'm going to point it out. I figure it would be less of an issue if some lunkhead like me were to bring it up rather than some high profile P.H.D. and make a mockery of the whole Idea. If the MOQ is truly a pragmatic, radically empiricist method, it will evolve to accommodate these types of questions thereby making it a more sound concept to the discrimenating critic. Also these questions should encompass the ideas of Bodivar and Ham. Who I believe get kinda a raw welcome with some of their concepts. I think there is a place for some of their assertions and some of their points are valid and should'nt be poo-pooed so quickly. but again I say, this is simply one persons opinion. Thanks 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/ 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/
