Ron,
With your abstract/concrete explanation, a hitch would be this abstract
part. I've been contemplating how all of this is imagination. All imaginary.
Yet, with the stipulation that these happenings be unmasked from those in
history that have tried to demonize them.
SA
--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [MD] moq thought experiement 1.
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Monday, July 7, 2008, 4:34 AM
> 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/
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/
