SA, Ron, Ron's interpretation of what I meant is spot on.
One example was in my original post MoQ is not SOM Intellect is the pattern known as SOM MoQ is an intellectual pattern Looks illogical in terms of traditional (analytical) logic. (We'd have to frame it more precisely to prove anything, but you get the idea, and it is the problem Bo alluded to.) Another example is The route of a river bed is created by the river that flows in it. The course of a river is constrained by the bed it flows in. Sounds like circular causation - traditional logic says they can't both be true. In both cases the problem is the time axis omitted from the word "is". Being is more about becoming, and in reality we have evolutionary processes at work with patterns that exist / arise somewhere else other than in any of the "objects" the assertions start with. In the case of the river - the typical meander pattern, or the typical canyon pattern, (or some other common pattern) neither of which existed in either the water or the land to begin with, but in the evolutionary process of interaction. In the case Ron refers to Bo ... it's more an (dynamic) intellectual release from the constraints of (static) intellect. I don't see this as any magic door opening going on. Just a clue that when logic looks circular / illogical, don't conclude it's wrong, just assume you've missed a dynamic process, or the time axis, from your consideration. Ian 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/
