At 09:03 AM 1/28/2009, you wrote:
Marsha and Ham
On 27 Jan.
Marsha wrote:
> > I agree with Bo that the levels are important and that the MOQ
> > perspective is above the level hierarchy. But I think a stronger
> > impact can be made from understanding the nature of the patterns
> > that inhabit the levels. So here I agree with you. Once the nature
> > of the patterns is understood, the usefulness of the level structure
> > becomes obvious. I am concerned that the patterns are seen as
> > independent (inherently existing) entities, just a new name for
> > objects. This I think is the wrong view. RMP has stated that there
> > are no thing-in-themselves in the MOQ, and he has mentioned Buddhism
> > and emptiness, though he has not stated my interpretation directly.
Right, the DQ/SQ divide (instead of the S/O) and the static levels
is what gives the MOQ its power. However yours about the nature
of the levels and your concern if the pattern are to be seen as
independent (inherently) existing entities I find a bit un-called for,
this is taken care of by the first postulate (existence's ground no
longer S/O but DQ/SQ).Thus all patterns are static quality and in
the Q context they are independent and exists very much in
themselves.
Greeting Bo,
A pattern has a coming and a going. Its strength is based on its
relationship with other patterns. It has attributes and aggregates
which are also patterns. It is most probably an aggregate to another
pattern. It is in a constant state of change.
Please explain how static patterns of value are independent and
'exist very much in themselves'. Please do not use the SOL because
it has not been sanctioned by anyone.
Marsha
.
_____________
Look, there's no metaphysics on earth like chocolates.
(Fernando Pessoa)
.
.
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/
