On Wednesday 2 July 200812:05 PM Ron writes to Squonk and DMB
Squonk said to Ron:
My own view is that the moq poorly states the relationship between DQ and
sq. I think the term sq needs to be replaced by a spectrum of patterns which
convey their dynamic status.
Ron replied to Squonk:
I agree, coincidentally I'm in pursuit of this very concept as we speak. I'm
researching how Aristotle used the abstract concrete distinction and propose
to substitute Dq/Sq in it's stead. Comprehensively what it would do is
provide a context in which DQ/SQ may operate in.
dmb says:
Hmmm. I think the hierarchy of levels already conveys the spectrum that
Squonk seeks for the MOQ. The biological level is more dynamic than the
inorganic, the social is more dynamic than the biological and the
intellectual level of static quality is the most dynamic.
It seems a bit clumsy and confusing to say "dynamic patterns" or "dynamic
static patterns". It seems to undermine the first and most basic distinction
in the MOQ, but if I understand it the idea can be pretty well expressed by
saying that the higher levels of static quality have structures that are
more open to change, are more flexible and are better able to respond to DQ.
I mean, "open structure" isn't an inherently contradictory phrase in
the same way that "dynamic static quality" is, but I think it retains
Squonk's meaning.
Joe:
Hi Squonk. Ron, DMB and all,
Bo¹s SOL usefully describes Aristotle¹s
division as a level of evolution, the intellectual level.
Ron:
I thought that was RMP who posited this in reference to the
origins of western cultural intellectual patterns. Bo maintains
that making the abstract/concrete grammatical distinction of axiom
is THE intellectual level of the human enterprise. It was
a Greek convention spread with the expansion of Alexander the greats
empire which was the first to conquer most of the known world.
This leaves out the shoulders of hundreds of years of the great
Intellectual thinkers who preceded Aristotle's axioms of logic
not to mention the intellectuals of the east and the world history
before or aside from Aristotle's method.
SOL is an explanation to support this fallacious claim
which fails even in this regard. It can not explain how MoQ
fits into it's own interpretation. It must invent a 5th level
to accommodate it and append half of the MoQ to fit the interpretation.
Bo's SOL smacks of intellectual absolutism, which I shy from.
I hope you can understand why I choose not to subscribe anymore.
Thanks Joe.
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/
