[Arlo]
> While perusing my backlog of message in PEIRCE-L
> (the Charles Peirce 
> equivalent to our MD), I found a post with the
> following thought...
> "wouldn't the question be what do we mean by "unity"
> expressed in 
> terms of how we assess its effects?


     How does "unity" - 'effect'?  When I think of
"unity", I think of everything.


     [Arlo]
> At bottom--if there is one--an 
> "object" is a very loosely associated and dynamic
> assemblage of 
> stuff, and "unity" is more like pattern than
> substance.

    Yes, "object" in this "unity" context is a
pattern.  The moq covers four levels of static
patterns.  The difficulty I'm seeing with recent
threads and discussion is as follows:

      Starting with object and then identifying what
static level object belongs.  It would be easier to
start from a static level of intellectual, social,
organic, and inorganic and use those terms to identify
a pattern.  I'm not saying going from the static level
then to object defines object better.  I'm saying
starting from a static level and then defining what
that level is is the starting point.  And yes, this
means ridding "object" as a pattern unless you find it
significant to know what level object is on.  And I
guess that's just it.  What importance is it to have
to fit a pattern in a this or that premise?  Or to
premise from a this or that, and then try to fit
everything into this or that?  "Object" is so empty of
a word/concept anymore, at least for me.  When I say
intellect, social, organic, or/and inorganic more
information is immediately known, than simply saying
"object". 


    [Arlo]
> There one might describe a "unit" or "object" in
terms of
> redundancy (expected 
> pattern vs. chaos)." (Author's name is Bill Bailey)
> Sounds very MOQish, no?

    I would say, instead of "describ(ing) a 'unit' or
'object' in terms..." one can notice patterns and
chaos right off the bat.  Unless, this author is using
"unit" or "object" in very general ways such as
'thing'.  If his premise is using terms of pattern
instead of "unit" or "object", then I agree this
sounds "very MOQish".

thanks.
SA


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on 
Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/ 

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/

Reply via email to