Hi Tim, [Tim] > OF course I like a lot of what you have to say about separation. And I > want to encourage you here to. But, I will say that I can't ascribe to > a simple definition of thingyness, and, as such, I suspect you may have > trivialized it. Things separate things too; whether quality mediates. > So 'separation' may be more complex too! > > [Mark] > This depends on how you want to approach it. If you look at a book, there is a separation between the letters and words. If you listen to music, there is separation between the notes. One could say that such separation adds to each, perhaps more than one would think (especially music). Anther way to look at it is not so much separation but as a background. An analogy here would be the screen on which a movie is projected. Objects are not trivial, but neither is the other side of perception. Balance is good. Look for the separation. We can certainly ascribe qualities to it (yes, pun). I have no problem with keeping things secret. Dynamic Quality has many properties which we can use.
It is just another way to approach Quality. Thanks for the encouragement, Mark > > -- > > [email protected] > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software > or over the web > > 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
