Hello Mark, On Nov 25, 2011, at 12:05 PM, 118 wrote:
> Hi Marsha, > Mark: > Well I guess this begs the question "where is the real?". Marsha: You brought the words "real thing" into the conversation. When I wrote "There is no real thing.", I could be considering that you meant the word "thing" in an independent, objective sense, or I could be questioning your use of "real" as in an Absolute sense, or both. Or maybe I should have disregarded your post,,, again. > Mark: > Words are symbols, but perhaps what words convey outside the symbology is > real. Marsha: Haven't the slightest idea what this means. > Mark: > If one lives in an unreal world, one is always searching. Marsha: I live in a provisional, static world interacting with DQ to a varying degree. I am sorry you are "always searching." > Mark: > Such searching is also considered unreal, and meaningfulness is lost. Marsha: What are you searching for? > Mark: > What has meaning to you? Marsha: It's all Value(Dynamic/static). > Mark: > Is there something behind the facade? Marsha: What facade? Marsha > > On Nov 25, 2011, at 1:11 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Mark, >> >> The MoQ as representing reality from an empirical point-of-view is >> Experience(unpatterned/patterned). The MoQ as representing reality >> theoretically is epistemologically relative and ontologically indeterminate. >> This is what is contained in my nutshell. Words are not separate from >> static quality and only represent provincial truth. There is no real thing. >> >> Marsha >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:48 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha, >>> All I was saying was that truth and individuals cannot be compared >>> relatively, imo. Truth relative to the individual means, to me, what the >>> individual takes to be true. I don't think this is Relativism, but I am >>> happy to be corrected on this. >>> >>> Since your ontology cannot be divided, it cannot be subjected to >>> Relativism. In that we agree. >>> >>> Any epistemology must use relative terms since it is a series of equations >>> in the form of words; the words must relate. However, that is a >>> description and not the real thing. I know you know this, this was for the >>> benefit of others. >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> On Nov 24, 2011, at 11:34 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> corrected to make clearer... >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 24, 2011, at 11:49 PM, 118 wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Marsha, >>>>> If you mean that truth is derived from the individual, then I agree >>>>> wholeheartedly. If you mean that there is some outside truth that is >>>>> interpreted differently by each individual, then I would say this goes >>>>> against MoQ. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Mark, >>>> >>>> I mean 'individual' as in a flow of ever-changing, conditionally >>>> co-dependent and impermanent, static patterns of inorganic, biological, >>>> social and intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality. I >>>> have the MoQ epistemologically relativistic as in static quality exists in >>>> stable patterns relative to other patterns without independent existence. >>>> And I have the MoQ ontologically indeterminate with Dynamic Quality as in >>>> indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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
