On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Marsha to no one in particular: > > I ask again: How does William James improve the MoQ? As far as I can see it > does not. It just points backwards and has nothing to say about Quality, > static patterns, or the hierarchical, evolutionary structure that helps > evaluate many conflicting patterns. > > Andre: > You do not accept this because you have something against dmb. Sort yourself > out Lucy. I'd wish (and I may not be the only one here on this MD)that you'd > do the same as Phaedrus...if only sometimes.
Marsha: I could have bet you'd show up... But to answer your question: Absolutely not! It's a serious question. And pointing to a chapter in LILA does not stand in for actually answering the question. But let me as you again, about your letter to Sam Harris. You've explained to S.H. that science is categorized as an intellectual static pattern of value, but not explained what that means. 'Science' is a name, a designator, a label; what makes 'science' an intellectual pattern? RMP has stated that the levels are discreet. How do I differentiate an intellectual pattern from a social pattern? How do I differentiate 'science' as an intellectual pattern from a social pattern? I bet Bo could answer... ___ 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
