Hi Dan, Thank you for your insight. I understand that MoQ has meaning to you. What I am trying to discuss is the rhetoric used to convey meaning to others. For many it would seem that the analogies used are obscure and require some special training or education. This is true for all metaphysics of course, but inroads must be presented which can be taken to provide meaning to the uninitiated, and to provide harmonization of premises. It is for this reason that I bring up the inadequacy of Static Patterns of quality. More below.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] Again, this postulation of composition indulges deviation. What is termed "static patterns" obfuscates the nature of Quality. As commonly used, a pattern is an interpretation of a group of sensory inputs, such as the pattern of a rug, or a big set of waves coming in to surf on. We cannot say that the ocean is composed of patterns of waves, since that would be an incorrect construct. We can say that the ocean expresses patterns of waves. There is a big difference there, that between composition and expression. > > 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] I am not sure what you mean by shorthand, or by convenience. The world is not composed of Quality, Quality expresses the world. The analogy of inorganic and biological can also be considered convenient (if I get your intention with that statement), and such levels should never be considered to be real, but analogies. There is no dogmatic rhetoric which can thoroughly define these levels, and the imposition of false boundaries reinforces static nature, which we do not want to do with Quality. > > > Dan: > No. There are no objects in the MOQ, only four levels of static > quality of value plus undefined Dynamic Quality. [Mark] The notion of objects and the notion of four levels are both fundamentally the same form of concept. The so called static and dynamic qualities are provided for purposes of meaning, and to consider them as additive to form a whole may not be useful. Such dualism can often present more problems than it solves. > > > 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] I do not believe I am confused, and being told how to think is not conducive to productive discussion. When you provide statements of composition, you are pointing to substance whether it be material or otherwise. It would seem that such methods of explanation are confusing. I have provided some reasons for being dismayed by this analogy of patterns previously. > > 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. [Mark] OK, no problem. > > 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] I would again say that for rhetorical purposes it is easier to understand MoQ if we speak of Quality expressing patterns. Since you use the small "q", could you explain what you are pointing towards? I will leave the notion of preconditioning for another discussion sometime, but the term "preconditions" implies a temporal component. > My intention is to provide meaningful concepts to help promote MoQ. To do this we must stay consistent within the vernacular, and as John says, not create new meanings for words. A word points to a certain thing and if we change the direction of such pointing it can confuse. I appreciate what you bring to MoQ, and my suggestions are certainly not rigorous but more an attempt to harmonize. >> Best wishes, Mark > 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
