On Mar 16, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Dan Glover wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:14 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mar 16, 2011, at 2:56 AM, Dan Glover wrote: >> >>> Dan: >>> In the framework of the MOQ, there are no supernatural entities like >>> spirit and soul. The MOQ is empirical. "The many" refers to static >>> quality patterns of value which are defined and discrete. Experience >>> (or awareness if you prefer) refers to Dynamic Quality which is both >>> undefined and infinitely definable. >> >> >> >> Hi Dan, >> >> How are static patterns of value "defined and discrete"? > > Hi Marsha > > Take a chair as an example... lets make it the chair I'm sitting in > now. I am sure everyone here has seen such a chair. It is defined as > an office chair. It has an elongated back, plastic arms, and rolls > around (should I find the need) on little plastic rollers. It is > covered with some kind of cloth, perhaps synthetic though I am not > sure. It is comfortable and useful. It is disrete from everything else > that is around it... the table my computer rests upon, the computer I > am writing on, and the rest of the world. > > It is important to remember though that within the framework of the > MOQ, the chair is a static pattern of value, not an object. The chair > is not just a comglomeration of plastic, metal, and cloth. Someone > intellectually thought of the chair and someone else manufactured it. > Still someone else sold the chair. The chair is a discrete part of the > inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual value that makes up > the world yet it is in no way independent of the world. > > Does that make sense? > > Thank you,
Greetings Dan, That's interesting but I have a very different interpretation of a static pattern of value. To start with a pattern is not just one occurrence. It is not an independent event, but, using chair as an example, related to your past history with the chair-pattern; it also is dependent on immediate sensory experience with the chair, and possible some future expectation for this chair. Besides this, it has an interdependence with all other chair events both inside and outside the immediate culture and with the events across all cultures and all languages in all contexts through all time. In other words, a chair-pattern for me can best be represented by all that is opposite-from-non-chair. This would likewise hold for the justice-pattern, wood-pattern, leg-pattern, or a zebra-pattern. A chair-pattern event could not encompass the entire pattern, but includes only those bits and pieces that are significant to the event. If the chair-pattern is represented only by the chair you are sitting on, then how do you recognize it as a chair? Certainly not by some Platonic ideal form, or a master-definition found is some encyclopedia or dictionary. For me 'chair' is a name given to an accumulation of useful value (events) that tends to persist and change in a predictable pattern. . >From my point-of-view, my interpretation makes more sense, so I guess we have different concepts of static patterns of value. Thank you, Marsha 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
