John said: The only thing that is constant, is change. > > Ian says - > > John, you are being argumentative, and it seems deliberately to miss > the point of the MoQ. >
John replies: What's the point of the MoQ if not to be argumentative? After all, it's the process of argumentation which leads to more and more refined conceptualization, Ian. In fact, I'd argue that the reason for the MoQ is to construct arguments that actually get somewhere rather than the usual "go nowhere" argments of SOMish persuasion. And I think this argument has gotten me somewhere in my understanding, so I'm happy. Peace of mind from a piece of mind. What more can you ask for ? Ian: > > Yes - the only "thing" that is constant is change. I've used the > phrase myself many times in everyday and work contexts - may even be a > chapter title of my masters dissertation ? Yes every "particle" in the > universe is in motion or some state of flux. But that's "things" > (objects / subjects) in the SOMist world, not static patterns. > John: I should have said, "not to be UNDULY argmentative" which means, "not to argue simply for the sake of argumentation... BUT", what, pray tell, is the functional difference between a "thing" in the SOMist world and a "static pattern"? Is it not exactly this understanding of an underlying dynamic nature to all of reality? And the realization, as you said elsewhere, and Margaret and I agree, that "static pattern" is a subjective judgement based on a perspective placed in certain time/space. Ian: > Static patterns are static in so far as the relations, even dynamic > relations between dynamic things are static patterns of quality in > those relations. You may need to look at patterns upon patterns to > find the static quality, but when you find them they are static > patterns. Yes existing patterns evolve and new patterns emerge, but > they are static compared to the interactions of the subjects and > objects involved. > > Ian I'm not sure how to put this together in a cohesive way that makes sense to me. I'm going to have to think about this some more, Ian. So thanks for that anyway. I'm gonna go for a walk in the desert, walk my daughter's dog and think about the nature of static patterns. I'm beginning to suspect that there might be a connection to direct experience to this whole conundrum. Either radical empiricism is a great big problem, or it's the whole solution. But the only way "Static" makes any sense to me is if we freeze the mind in that tiny slice of preconceptual awareness. The problem is, is that life just isn't like that. Life never stops till we die. Be well and take care, John 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
