Hi Mark, The last thing I might want to do is beg a question, especially from you, for I often have difficulty answering my own questions and your questions seem like tongue twisters. What is Ultimately Real versus what is real as patterned value, and are they really separate and really real? Good questions, and I could spend hours, days, weeks and dreams trying to find a good answer, and wondering what is good, ...
Marsha On Dec 5, 2012, at 6:00 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > That is a good understanding as far as I am concerned. It does beg the > question as to what we mean by real. It seems to me that we participate in > the creation of the real. The real can therefore not be held objectively at > arms length. Through the creation of knowledge we can create ontology. > > The only reason we cannot create ontology and keep it indeterminate, is that > is what we want. What you suggest is what others suggest, and that is to not > discuss the nature of Quality. This goes against what MoQ is for, in my > opinion. I am not sure why everybody is afraid to discuss Quality (create > ontology). Perhaps they lack imagination. Quality has been discussed from > an ontological point of view throughout the ages. > > My guess is that such people misunderstand SQ, and are afraid of it. > > Cheers, > > > Mark > > On Dec 4, 2012, at 9:11 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> It is my understanding that ontology is concerned with what is fundamentally >> real, while epistemology is concerned with understanding what it is to have >> knowledge. For me the MoQ is ontologically indeterminate (DQ), and >> epistemologically relativistic (sq), relative to past and present patterns >> of value and the dynamics of moment. >> >> >> 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
