[Marsha]
> To recap my thinking to this point:
> My original question (borrowed from Tittivulus) in
> this thread was: So why not explore the notion of a
distinct
> 's/o experience' as
> a working hypothesis so you can proceed to explore
> the various components of such an experience
(components, not
> parts). Wouldn't that be a better, more MOQ'ish
method of inquiry?
[SA currently]
Marsha, it sounds as if, what your pointing out,
amongst other events, is that by noticing "components"
for example, we're taking leave of 'intellect divided
from social' would be more clearly stated as intellect
is a component of social, social is a component of
biological, etc... This fits in nicely with the each
preceding level is the foundation and what emerges
from the foundation depends on the foundation. The
emerged level is freeing itself from its' foundation
level, but they are still components of each other and
if the foundation is destroyed the emerged level
disappears.
woods,
SA
P.S. As I stated in another post, if we get caught in
distinctions being separate parts it would be to
forget that 'light red'/'pink' (S/O) can be the same.
Thus, the levels as components show more clearly what
we are categorizing amidst the general component
called static quality, and as a component itself,
static quality is with dynamic quality.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
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/
