Hi Marsha, I was trying to understand what you mean by process. I suppose this could be considered static since gravitation is fixed at a particular time. It is my understanding that gravity represents the attraction of one thing for another. We all exude gravity. So that is one of its compositions. I would consider it a process since it acts accordingly. Other part of its composition are the laws which it appears to follow. Gravity also warps space depending on its intensity, so warping is a property. Gravity acts on all things including light, so that may be another.
Can't think of any more for now. I remember asking you what the opposite of a chair is, many years ago. You replied that it is a non-chair. This still does not make much sense to me, but it may be moving into Ham's metaphysics of Essence. So that which is opposite of Gravity would be negated for a short while into the world of relativity (no pun intended). I am not sure if gravity follows the same laws as quantum mechanics. There has yet to be a theory of everything. So far, cosmology and quantum mechanics are irreconcilable. Thanks for your answer, Mark On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:55 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > going to clean this up a little > > > Hello again Mark, > > If you were suggesting that 'gravitation' refers to a particular static > pattern > of value, what exactly comprises (every last bit of it) that pattern? > > Can such a question be answered? If yes, what is the answer? If no, > why not? > > You might understand why, at the moment, I think the best answer would be: > all-that-is-opposite-from-non-gravitation, and I sometimes visualize the > pattern > as a cloud of probability. > > > Marsha > > > > > On Jun 7, 2011, at 4:37 AM, MarshaV wrote: > >> >> Mark, >> >> You ask a strange question. 'Gravitation' is a word; It may be the name of >> a cat, >> dog or horse, or a conceptual theory. At the very least it participates in >> a linguistic >> process. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> > >> >> On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:31 PM, 118 wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha, >>> Is gravitation a process? >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 1:58 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here is my (conventional/static) definition of static patterns of value: >>>> >>>> Static patterns of value are processes: impermanent, >>>> interdependent, ever-changing. (Not objects. Not subjects. >>>> Not things-in-themselves.) Overlapping, interconnected, >>>> ever-changing processes that pragmatically tend to persist >>>> and change within a stable, predictable pattern. >>>> >>>> Here's my (conventional/static) definition of reification: >>>> >>>> Reification means treating any functioning phenomenon >>>> as if it were a real, permanent 'thing', rather than an >>>> impermanent process." >>>> >>>> Reification represents how the common man, and many scientists, >>>> academics and even philosophers conceptualize. It evolved as a tool to >>>> facilitate some kind of betterness. But it is flawed and of course the MoQ >>>> and help rectify the flaw. I have suggested that reification is either a >>>> part >>>> of the conceptualization process, or that there is a interdependency >>>> between conceptualization and reification. >>>> >>>> But, of course, you are correct Mary. Both 'conceptualization' and >>>> 'reification' are static patterns of value, conventional (relative) truths. >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha > > > > > ___ > > > 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
