On Jul 24, 2010, at 10:35 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > Marsha said: > ... A pattern is not limited to finite definition. Patterns can be amorphous > and still be stable. > > > dmb says: > > Amorphous means "shapeless" or "without form". So you are saying, in effect, > that patterns are shapeless and without form. This is simply a contradiction > of the definitions of the terms. Again, that's why they're called STATIC > patterns. They're ordered and stable and finite. > > > Marsha said: > They are not finite! Finite would be a thing-in-itself. Patterns are > repeated or memorized events or processes. Habit. ... Ordered and stable is > not a problem; finite IS a problem. > > > dmb says: > To say something is finite only means that it has limits, that it's not > infinite. This has nothing to do with being a thing-in-itself, which is a > Kantian idea about the objective reality apart from our perceptions of it. In > the MOQ, there are no things-in-themsleves. The idea is just that concepts > and words have meaning by virtue of their deFINITions. See the word "finite" > in there? A definition serves as a definition precisely because it has > limits. Words and concepts mean what they mean in relation to other words and > concepts in the whole system of language or thought. For example, amorphous > means "not structured" and structured means "not amorphous". They give each > other meaning by virtue of not being the other, like so many other pairs of > opposites. This is not to say that each word or concept can only ever mean > one specific thing but it certainly means that words have limits and can only > be stretched to a certain point, beyond which they start to become > meaningless. Us in > g the term "amorphous" to describe "patterns" would be such a case. Using the > term "ever-changing" to describe "static" would be another. > > You are torturing these ideas without mercy, not to mention the english > language. That's what I mean by intellectual vandalism and I think it's a > totally valid philosophical criticism. > > Thanks.
Marsha: Okay, but then will you explain to me your understanding of the difference between a static pattern of value and a thing-in-itself? For example, what is the difference, as you see it, between an inorganic static pattern of value and an inorganic thing-in-itself. How do patterns and objects differ? ___ 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
