On Monday 5 May 2008 7:14 AM Ron writes to SA: <snip> [Ron] Whats the big deal with not defining it? What MoQ explains is how language parts up experience in order to be understood and communicated conceptually. When I say language, I mean that entity which is part and parcel of Our cultural and intellectual experience. [Ron] So what MoQ is partially about is linguistically (therefore conceptually) defining things in terms of DQ/SQ. [Ron] MoQ is about a way to more accurately talk about experience and therefore a more accurate understanding of experience. [Ron] It transcends our cultural/intellectual paradigm by redefining how nouns And There fore "things" are termed and conceptualized. This is how it is able to Stand outside of Bo's intellectual level. But if he conceded that our cultural/intellectual level/linguistic entity is not the only one on The planet he could see that and solve his enigma. But no, he has to create This elaborate system of redirection like a three stooges plumbing gag when They attempt to fix a leak by redirecting it around themselves in a web of pipe ultimately diverting it on them trapped inside. But all hail the king. I leave him to his dilemma. I just want to get some things out there. <snip>
Hi Ron, SA and all, By emphasizing the undefined aspect of DQ, I was trying to point out that ³consciousness² is a ³vessel² that holds DQ. It is an ³immediate² experience construct, though indefinable. DQ is placed in the memory. The experience is in indefinable ³consciousness² which is the undefined aspect of a conscious/mechanical division of experience. This is not the same as Aristotle¹s ³essence² which is an abstracted entity which is then given an ³intentional existence² and placed in the mind. IMO Bo creates a delicious dish with his flavoring with DQ. WHY MoQ IS PARALYDzED is that it takes a very careful cook to serve up such a dish. Joe On 5/5/08 7:14 AM, "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Whats the big deal with not defining it? What MoQ explains is how > language parts up experience in order to be understood and communicated > conceptually. > When I say language, I mean that entity which is part and parcel of > Our cultural and intellectual experience. > > So what MoQ is partially about is linguistically (therefore > conceptually) defining things in terms of DQ/SQ. > > MoQ is about a way to more accurately talk about experience and > therefore a more accurate understanding of experience. > > It transcends our cultural/intellectual paradigm by redefining how nouns > and > There fore "things" are termed and conceptualized. This is how it is > able to > Stand outside of Bo's intellectual level. But if he conceded that our > cultural/intellectual level/linguistic entity is not the only one on > The planet he could see that and solve his enigma. But no, he has to > create > This elaborate system of redirection like a three stooges plumbing gag > when > They attempt to fix a leak by redirecting it around themselves in a web > of pipe ultimately diverting it on them trapped inside. But all hail > the king. I leave him to his dilemma. > > I just want to get some things out there. 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/
