John to Andre: I agree completely that DQ is sq, is a wrong statement. For one thing, sq is completely subjective and DQ is not.
Andre: Oh, and what about inorganic and organic patterns of value? These are termed (for the SOM-ist's assistance in making the conversion...or rather the inversion): 'objective' patterns of VALUE. What is 'DQ' then John? Are you going to give one of Marsha's revealing statements: not this, not that? This statement within the context of Buddhism is meaningful. Placed in Western philosophy it is meaningless...and the way Marsha uses it: a cop out! John: DQ is a fact, and sq is an illusion. However, its illusions are the means by how we live, and thus it's not a bad illusion, it's a good one. Andre: Well, without wanting to go overboard on this one let's just say that 'DQ' is as 'real' as 'sq'. The sq without DQ is SOM. To be more specific: the 's' is SOM...the rest is subjective bull. John: Well, other than the part that gives me a headache with all your "reality" definitions... I'm struggling with the functional difference between "concept" and "referent (or referring) term" cuz me? That's what I use all conceptualization for - terms that refer to something. Andre: I hope I have cleared up the 'realities' bit... just a dynamic and static perspective, I cannot follow your notion that you cannot follow the notion that there is a difference between DQ and sq because DQ is used, in the MOQ, as a referent term. Why a referent term? Because it cannot be defined; all conceptualizations of it are what it is not. You only end up with referents of what it is not when you try, intellectually to 'tag' it. The referent is a finger... . John speaking of Marsha: Her "dangerous conflation" is all-pervasive in all communication. I mean, it's the inevitable sq of existence that can't be escaped, so to blame her for it or warn her away from it seems at least as ridiculous as any ubiquitous charge of reification. Andre: If the DQ/sq conflation means (for you) the 'inevitable sq of existence that can't be escaped' you are indeed pointing to the 'inevitable' something dmb, myself and others have warned Marsha against ( and of course denied by her). What you are suggesting John is that SOM is inevitable. And hereby you have completely nullified ZMM and LILA! John: The trick, I think, is to accept a variety of conceptualization of DQ, and not insist upon any one dogmatic, exclusive formulation. But to avoid conceptualization at all is impossible and not really what we need. Andre: Do I smell a rat? John: I think the key point is in the "differentiated", Andre. "sq is differentiated DQ" puts a lot of emphasis upon the process of differentiation. Andre: You know John, I am beginning to think that you (and Marsha, amongst others) see DQ as consisting of little bits of sq. In other words, DQ consists of loads and loads of sq's and the more we abstract sq's from it the closer we get to 'it' revealing 'itself'! (In Mary's expression): 'yuck'.
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
