On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:14 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John and Ian, >
Hi Mark ;-! > It seems to me that the point is in asking for clarification. John's > question requests such a thing. If static means everything but > static, then we need further discussion. If we say that the > definition of static is all concepts and objects, then let's just say > concept and object quality. You define the problem well. Problem is, it looks like that's just a new construction of an old Idealism, and I guess "we" don't wanna go there. But you're spot-on with the need for more clarification. If you're gonna have a DQ/sq fundament of reality, then finding out one of those terms is NOT fundamental means you need to reformulate - at least technically speaking. So... the truth of the equation lies in the relationship of sq to subjectivity - a category which the MoQ supposedly transcends. So I can see how poking "staticity" can raise irritation and annoyance. > If it means everything that is defined, > then we can say defined quality. My sense is that it means more than > that. Could somebody please clarify? > > Yup. I'm with you. But then, I'm digging back through my boxes, and it takes a while. Hopefully somebody will have an idea. JCP 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
