Marsha, and Everyone I think
I Think I get what Bo means by this: To a SOMist everything is subject and
object. To a MOQist everything is Quality. If you ask both of them: "but
hey, where did Objects/Quality come from?" both of them will answer that 'it
was always there', perhaps adding: 'waiting to be recognized by us humans.'
That, and a religious understanding of things isn't part of a system, it is
what makes a system possible.
But I will ask Bo this then, how does the MOQ and the SOM differ?
In fact, I will ask all of you that.
>>I don't quite get your point, the fact that reality's (=Quality's)
>>dynamic component is part of the MOQ can't by no twist of logic
>>be a "definition" and thus an desecration. I used the example of
>>religions that postulate a God/World split, but God is still as
>>sacred. Yet, it struck me just now, this may have wider
>>ramifications. The pious thinks that God is from before "religion",
>>is it the same piety that surfaces as a demand about a Quality
>>from before the MOQ?
>>Bo
>
> Greetings Bo,
>
> My point is that to put DQ in a box, or metalevel, is a definition
> (maybe visual) of containment.
>
> When you talk about god, I haven't any idea what you are talking about.
>
> 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/
