Mark, You have ignored my returned questions in most of our discussions for many months, as if your interests trump mine. I am tired of what feels like an one-sided interrogation. I feel no need to acknowledge your questions. I will respond only when I do.
I do not hold the view that all patterns, being relative, are equal. According to the MoQ, which has truth (patterns)as relative, patterns may be evaluated based on whether they function as inorganic, biological, social or intellectual events/processes. The term 'relativism', and there are many types within the domain of philosophy, does not inherently exist as 'all being equal.'. Marsha p.s. All theory, including quantum theory, has a metaphysical underpinning. Quantum theory is the newest and most dynamic, and still in-process. A form of relativism may one day have its own revival. imho Sent from my iPad On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:28 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > I thought I answered your questions as they came up, but I guess I thought > wrong. My apologies. > > Non-locality falls out of the statistical nature of quantum mechanics. > Sociology treats individuals as statistics which means the individual does > not exist locally. It is simply a product of the math used. Nothing cosmic > going on there, unless one is wedded to math. Then I suppose one would be > convinced that the math is reality. > > Your "stable pattern are relative only if you want to see them that way. I > do not see them that way. There is no need to always be comparing > everything. I find that approach to be limited. But, if you have a love for > equations, then I can see your need to equate things. Each to his/her own. > I do not consider my view to be relative to yours. > > Sent laboriously from an iPhone, > Mark > > On Nov 27, 2011, at 10:17 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Mark, >> >> There are serious questions, from me and to you, in this post. They are the >> sentences with the questions marks at the end. - What do you think words >> are for? What are you searching for? What 'facade' are you talking about? >> How does the concept of 'unreal' enter into this dialogue? - You have >> generally been ignoring the questions I have presented to you for a long >> time. I no longer take your posts to be serious, and no longer feel the >> need to answer any of them. >> >> Btw, Quality may be compared to quantum theory's non-locality. Static >> quality exists in stable patterns relative to (that's relative to) other >> patterns, where patterns have no independent existence. No hidden >> variables, only Quality. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:17 PM, MarshaV wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Marsha, >>> >>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 2:10 PM, 118 wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Mark: >>>> This is fun. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> I suspect a mild form of insanity. >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 9:44 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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: >>>> I suppose I should ask you "independent" from what? We use the word >>>> "objective" to imply detached. I will agree that we are not detached, and >>>> that the word can be dropped if you want. It is often used rhetorically >>>> to provide a meaningful split between the "subjective" and the >>>> "objective". Is this split meaningless to you? If so, I can avoid using >>>> it. However, if we start to simplify language, the color it brings turns >>>> to shades of grey. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> I have no idea what you are talking about. >>> >>> >>>>>> Mark: >>>>>> Words are symbols, but perhaps what words convey outside the symbology >>>>>> is real. >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> Haven't the slightest idea what this means. >>>> >>>> Mark: >>>> OK, then let me ask the following thought question: What are words used >>>> for? This may give a better idea. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> I do not know for certain. What do you think? >>> >>> >>>>>> 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." >>>>> >>>> IMark: >>>> f your world is provisional, what is it provisional to? >>> >>> Marsha: >>> I should have said I live in a conventional, static world. >>> >>> >>>>>> Mark: >>>>>> Such searching is also considered unreal, and meaningfulness is lost. >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> What are you searching for? >>>> >>>> Mark: >>>> Many things, but the right here right now is real to me. I see no reason >>>> to hide it as if there were something more. It would seem that you >>>> operate within a fake world. If a word is not real, then what is it? If >>>> provisionality is not real, then where do you find yourself? >>> >>> Marsha: >>> I meant provincial or conventional world. What _seems to you_ about me is >>> your problem because I cannot related to anything you've written. >>> >>> >>>>>> Mark: >>>>>> What has meaning to you? >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> It's all Value(Dynamic/static). >>>> >>>> Mark: >>>> Is Value Real to you, or is there something contingent to Value or Quality? >>> >>> Marsha: >>> I might repeat the positive tetralemma that Jay Garland put together: >>> >>> Everything is _conventionally_ real. >>> Nothing is _Ultimately_ real. >>> Everything is both _conventionally_ real and _Ultimately_ unreal. >>> Nothing is either _conventionally_ unreal or _Ultimately_ real. >>> >>> >>>>>> Mark: >>>>>> Is there something behind the facade? >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> What facade? >>>> >>>> Mark: >>>> When you say unreal it seems to imply a facade. Is there then no facade? >>> >>> Marsha: >>> You brought in the word 'unreal'. Do you mean Ultimately unreal? Do you >>> know what you mean??? >>> >>> >>> You've ignored my questions. I've had enough. This is too boring. >>> >>> >>> Byeeee. >>> >>> >>> 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 > 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
