On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:52 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dan: >> Well, to my mind, the MOQ states that a chair, like anything else, is >> composed of patterns of value. >> > [Mark] > > I wonder whether the concept of a chair being composed of patterns of > value is useful as an analogy. It seems to me to be misleading; not > to you, since you grasp the essence of Quality, but to others.
Hi Mark Within the framework of the MOQ, everything is composed of static patterns of value. I was using my chair as a way to define a set of patterns otherwise known as my chair. Mark: > Certainly such an analogy can be used as one of the bricks of MoQ, but > when brought up out of context it may be deceiving. The phrase would > seem to indicate that the building blocks of an object is Quality, in > the same way bricks are to a building, or atoms are to a brick. > However, while Quality can bring forth attributes, it should not be > considered the essence of objects. Objects cannot contain Quality; > Quality is better considered as a differential phenomenon. Dan: No. Within the framework of the MOQ the world is composed of Quality. Objects are convenient shorthand for inorganic and biological patterns of value. >Mark: > Objects are a metaphor for Quality. Dan: No. There are no objects in the MOQ, only four levels of static quality of value plus undefined Dynamic Quality. Mark: A book of words about World War > II is not the actual war, nor is it its essence. That Quality could > be considered the substance of objects provides some with > misdirection. Dan: When you put it that way, yes. Forget about objects! The substance of them is confusing you. Instead, think only of patterns of value. Mark: For example, my pen pal Ham is seduced by that kind of > statement to literally imagine little bits of Quality making up an > object. Of course he and others would dismiss such a consideration, > and such a notion imparts a false conjecture which cannot be > supported. The same can be said for the phrase "static patterns of > Quality". Again, we are using Quality as a component here, which, > while beguiling, is incorrect. Quality does not make patterns, > patterns result from our brains interacting with the environment > causing a biochemical/cellular "occurrence" which we call "seeing an > object". This is physical in nature, and, as such, does not point to > Quality. Dan: There is a reason Quality is capitalized... the phrase "static patterns of Quality" is incorrectly used here. Quality when being used synonymously with Dynamic Quality is always capitalized but when used in conjunction with static quality it is not. Within the framework of the MOQ, cause and effect are left behind. Instead, patterns value preconditions. Of course patterns do not make quality... they ARE quality! Our brains are preconditioned to interact with our environment via the cultural mores to which we are accustomed. >Mark: > It is well established that words are insufficient to encapsulate > Quality. Words can be more than that as well, and be destructive of a > concept. I provide this consideration of jeopardy, not to be > argumentative, but because I care for MoQ. Dan: Me too. > > I am interested to hear what you think. Thank you Mark. I am interested in what you think too. Dan 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
