Horse, You want logic, talk to Craig. I'm supporting paradox.
Marsha On Mar 30, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Horse wrote: > Hi Marsha > > The problem here is that you've defined everything but subjects and objects > out of the equation! Your starting point is to define the Intellectual level > as consisting of only subjects and objects and then say that it's all > subjects and objects because that's how it's defined. > > On Mar 30, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Horse wrote: > >>> / Hi Marsha > />>/ > />>/ Process metaphysics is written in the same language as SOM, Shakespeare, > />>/ King Charles bible, Wikipedia, the C++ Standard Library, this mailing > list AND MoQ. > > /> All you list are subject/object oriented. > > So the MoQ is now S/O oriented!!! > >> For me there is a Quality Level where >> Reality is Quality(unpatterned experience& patterned experience), and as of >> yet, no language (except possible when used poetically) properly communicates >> that reality. Even within physics there is no way yet to intellectualize >> what is >> still in its infancy of discovery and understanding. I like best the >> possibilities >> for entanglement. But I will admit I know very little. > > Quality level? There is no Quality level - you're now trying to subjugate > Quality to a static pattern of Value. This is what levels are - static > patterns of Value. Yes, Quality is Reality, according to the MoQ and can be > subdivided into Dynamic Quality (Unpatterned Experience [UE]) and Static > Quality (Patterned experience [PE] otherwise known as static patterns of > Value - or the levels of the MoQ). What you appear to be saying is that there > is a fifth level of Value (static - has to be because it's a level) which is > Quality. So now Quality (reality) consists of DQ and SQ (UE and PE) where SQ > (PE) also contains Quality!!!!! > No wonder no language can properly communicate that reality. > This is what I meant when I said that Bo's interpretation has mangled the MoQ. > >>> / If your point is that because we "use subjects and objects [and] the >>> associated > />>/ rules for their manipulation" then the Intellectual level is strictly > S/O then the > />>/ MoQ, which is written in the same language, is also at this same level. > So the > />>/ MoQ is part of the Intellectual level - which is not what you or Bo > appear to > />>/ be saying. > / >> Yes, there is the SOM explanation of the MoQ, where it is intellectually >> presented >> and explained as a theory: ZMM, LILA, SODV, etc., > > It's not a SOM explanation it's just an explanation in English and > shows quite clearly that SOM and MoQ are Intellectual patterns of Value. > >> but there is also the MoQ that >> represents Reality equals Quality(unpatterned experience& patterned >> experience.) > > This is just a re-statement of of Pirsig's Reality = Quality = DQ + SQ. > If this MoQ represents it then how does it do this if not by S/O as you have > said. > >> >> Mary has asked, and I have asked for examples of intellectual patterns that >> aren't presented as the manipulation of reified concepts and the rules for >> their >> manipulation, but I have seen no such examples. > > And I have given examples but while you have defined them out of the picture > you will > continue to fail to see them as such. > How on earth can Zero be either subject or object when it references neither? > Or infinity? > >> Your process metaphysics is >> most certainly a s/o presentation, hopeful for the future, but still mired >> in SOM. >> > > Process metaphysics is in direct opposition to SOM - it says so on the label! > >> I'm sticking with Bo. The Intellectual Level is through and through SOM. > > Sorry, but Bo's Intellectual Level (and yours it would appear) may be SOM > through and through but the Intellectual level of the MoQ is Intellectual > patterns of Value. Subjects and objects are just some of these patterns not > it's entirety. > > >> Cheers, chocolate and love, > >> Marsha > > > Big kisses > > Horse > > > > > -- > > Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving > safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, > chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally > worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson > > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
