Marsha had said: Do you mean 'one' as a single entity? And what do you mean by Quality, are you referring to DQ as opposed to sq, or are you referring to Quality before the split into dynamic/static aspects, or what? That's why I like the phrase "nothing but value". Maybe a single process rather than a single entity. From a static point-of-view pluralistic seems more applicable. Or maybe Paul Turner's up and coming revised paper on the tetralemma and two-truths might shed some light on the topic.
Ron replies: Quality before the split. Which then aims at the dynamic if indeed all is dynamic "actually" and I would agree that from the static point of view the plural is more applicable, that is why I asked that to take the monistic point of view staticly seems to be a departure from Pragmatism and the ways in which we typically assert Quality as indefinable and in flux. The two truths is that one use of the term "truth" is broad general and abstract in meaning while particular truths and truth values are many. The person of immediate experience takes the many and varied as the most meaningful and seems to be the direction we like to point in, we tend to avoid broad generalization especially about Quality. To conclude: "nothing but value" does not neccessarily mean that value is "one", as a monism would dictate it can be taken pluraly as "nothing but value" to mean more acurately "nothing but values". "But if you follow the pragmatic method , you cannot look on any such word as closing your quest. you must bring out of each word it's practicle cash value, set it at work within the stream of your experience. It appears as less of a solution, then, than as a program for more work and more particularly as an indication of the ways in which existing realities may be changed." -Willam James Pragmatism Marsha asks: I understand the MoQ to monistic because it posits that Reality, the World, is nothing but value. Do you deny this? Ron: I do not deny that the world is nothing but value, although I do deny that Value is "one" In any respect other than as a primary explanitory factor. Experience is varied and many. So to wrap things up, I do not think asserting MoQ as a monism as consistent with what it means to be a pragmatist. . .. 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
