Jan Anders had said:
As long as Mon in Monism stand for One as in Mono vs Stereo sound and Quality
is different from SOM then Quality should be a Monism and SOM be regarded as
some sort of Dilemma.
If you've read my book you'd know that there is a way to connect a dichotomy
like Classic-Romantic, DQ/SQ and the four aspects of Thermodynamics into One
dynamic monistic act of balance.
Even One or One-ness, physically or just as concept, as a static pattern or
example of balancing act between None, Two or Else, will sooner or later come
into question and finally change in some way. Marsha knows that. But until
then, it is as it is.
Ron replies:
How SoM began, was by encapsulating the Good, and the Good was encapsulated by
calling it "one"
giving birth to contrarity one/not one, one/many, one/other, truth /appearence,
good/evil ect..
You explain that unity is a dynamic act of balance a kind of harmony between
many, the many are united
by a kind of sameness. Saying that from many arise "one". Then certainly the
many are prior to "one"
in explanation making it not accurate to call Quality a monism. "E plurabis
unum"
So, what do we mean when we say that Quality is "one"?
/
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
