Ron
> Ron: > It is, the language we are using is subject object heavy. It implies > Excluded middles. A distinction must be made in order to talk about > Anything but It helps to understand they are aspects of value. Not > distinct > Entities in themselves. So the MOQ says yes. > Chris: > but you do have a point: Everything is quality, > but from a MOQ perspective, which overwrites the SOM perspective > everything > is either Static Patterns of Value, or Dynamic Quality, the latter we > cannot > put into words, since when we do so it will be static. > > Ron: > from our perception yes, but theoretically it is all the same dynamic > process. In the sense that everything is derived from Dynamic Quality sure, but even from a MOQ perspective one must say that what we observe as static patterns are really static patterns - patterns who are more or less able to react and interpret Quality. The thing is: it is from this perspective that the MOQ becomes meaningful to us. > Chris: > But I don't really > think there is a big disagreement here since we all agree on the view > that > everything is Quality, Value. > > Ron: > No disagreement really, but it does effect a discussion if there is a > Conflict of opinions on this matter, analytic thinking may sneak in > And murder a concept before it gets off the ground just by language > alone > And the associated thinking that's attached to it. (which is analytic by > nature). So static/ dynamic isn't really a split. But are convenient > terms > To express a type of distinction.. it's the expression of a distinction > Which creates the illusion of distinct and separate entities especially > when we begin to use them in abstractions for comprehension of their > relationships. I really don't think there is a recognition of > subject/object > Until this level of abstracting distinctions is realized. SOM may be > unique > To Greek culture simply based on how the language system refers to > Distinctions, the Greeks saw s/o because that was how the language > Treated the distinctions, which in turn developed into a rational > Way of connecting and expressing ideas in certain terms. Ah, so perhaps you would agree that that distinction that was made is so fundamental in it's design of a new way of interpreting everything that it would constitute the 4th level? > I'm teaching my daughter to read English, which I find out is a > Collection of terms borrowed from other lexicons. Therefore > There are no hard fast rules on pronunciation, I find that > Just using English to express ideas channels those ideas in a particular > fashon. > Do you find flipping from your native language to English conflicts with > meaning In cases of comprehension? Not really, English comes quite natural to me, even though the spelling often is a bit under the weather - the same goes for Swedish actually, from a small age I have always concentrated on the whole picture of understanding rather than care for the small details, such as spelling - much to my teachers dismay =) Most of the time, I think and reason in Swedish and English together at the same time. It is too bad that English speakers can't understand the word "Lagom" though - an incredibly Dynamic word! =) Regards Chris 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/
