Marsha says: Hello Andre,
There are no things-in-themselves. Phenomena as a referent would be something external like granite as an inorganic static pattern of value (spov). A concept as a referent would be an idea like Socialism as a social static pattern of value (spov). What I am trying to get at is that in both cases, granite (inorganic level) and Socialism (social level), regardless of the referent, the static pattern of value is conceptual. What do you think? I hope I understand you correctly Marsha: both can referred to as conceptual? I can "conceptualise" Socialism a little better than granite but that is because of closer identification. Having said this however, conceptualising both as patterns and realising that we are all those patterns dissolves the identification into a sort of a Thou art That. But is this a concept or a realisation? Perhaps not convincing Marsha but it is the best I can do, given I have understood you correctly. It is talking about these that I find language more a hinderance than a help, especially the written language. You ask interesting/stimulating questions! Andre 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/
