Hello Mark, On Apr 28, 2011, at 1:43 AM, 118 wrote:
> >> Marsha: >> I'm sticking with DQ as "indivisible, undefinable and unknowable". - I do >> think one should be able to explain how to recognize an intellectual >> static pattern of value. To assign 'science' as an intellectual pattern >> explains nothing. 'Science' and 'zero,' are names, not patterns. >> > [Mark] > OK >> >> >> Marsha" >> "providing guidance' sounds like 'intention.' What I mean by function is >> more about how it behaves: abstracts, isolates, reifies to know and >> manipulate. > > [Mark] > Yeah, that is why I have difficulty ascribing function to DQ. We can > certainly see how the intellectual level behaves in hind-sight. I > don't think that level abstracts, it is abstraction. > > How about if we analogize the intellectual level to a movie on the > screen. This process has several parts. The movie (in days of old) > is on a film which has light passed through it, the light carries the > information and hits a screen where what was once light is now broken > up into all sorts of static patterns. Which part do you think could > be the intellectual level? Marsha: Most generally, the intellectual level would be the part that is opposite-from-non-(intellectual level). And your analogy and my response signals the end of further discussion. ___ 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
