Horse,

I am not trying to convince you of anything.  To me the MoQ represent 
Reality as Quality(unpatterned experience & patterned experience).  
 
 
Marsha
 
 
 
On Mar 30, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Horse wrote:

> Marsha
> 
> What you seem to be supporting is a low quality interpretation of the MoQ.
> A metaphysics has to make sense or it has little value.
> What you have said makes little sense to me.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> Horse
> 
> On 30/03/2010 17:55, MarshaV wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>>   
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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

Reply via email to