Ron,
I agree with you. It's impossible to find the words, and why
understanding the nature of these patterns (word-labels) is
........ There is no common assumption. At their most
understandable they're relationship, but in the end they are so much
dust in the wind. If you want to be the hammerer on top, be my
guest. A hammer is not as elegant as an X Acto Knife. I was just
trying to communicate with Platt.
As far SOL being obsolete for MOQ'ers, I was thinking of yet-to-be
MOQ'ers. And Earth to Ron, many physicists do not know other than
s/o with lots of space.
Marsha
At 01:43 PM 5/5/2009, you wrote:
Platt, Marsha,
Basically that is what she is saying only she uses the term relationship
which is commonly understood as interaction between objects, but, she
already states that what we assume as objects are actually greater sets
of relationships, relationships of relationships or a better word for what
she is describing is value.
As I keep hammering on, common assumptions about common terms
in our culture is what creates philosophical paradox , the failure
of rationalism. Our language is based on the grammatic predication
of subjects and objects. So even when we hear the term relationships
we automatically conceptualize the interaction of objects and have difficulty
even forming concepts about entityless abstractions. The same goes for value,
The terms "value" and "relationship" are almost meaningless without
the conventional conception of objects.
Physicists have understood the inherent emptiness of reality for the past
60-70 yrs but has yet to percolate to the public.
This is why SOL is redundant and obsolete, as MoQists
we already know this, physicists already know this.
Pirsig uses the lingual distinction of Dq/Sq just to avoid
essentialism in conception.
-Ron
________________________________
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:16:19 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns s/o or relationship???
On 5 May 2009 at 6:56, MarshaV wrote:
>
> Are all physicist as enlightened as this one???
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRduOpj1R7c&feature=related
>
>
> 4:05 minutes
Marsha,
Don't you think this physicist would be more enlightened if she had
acknowledged the role of values in the structure of the universe?
Emphasizing relationships and interconnections as she does strikes me as
assuming an S/O premise.
Thanks for the link.
Platt
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/
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
