Oooops, another correction:
J-A,
Since you did not clarify your specific question, let me suggest that to reify
the pot misses the importance of the hollow, empty space inside.
Marsha
> 14 apr 2013 kl. 11.18 skrev MarshaV:
>
>>
>> Greetings J-A,
>>
>> Many is not all. There's a difference between an universal qualifier and an
>> existential qualifier. I do appreciate the usefulness of concepts, but I
>> hold all static patterns of value to be hypothetical, especially those I
>> present. I find it more useful to consider objects of knowledge (stuff in
>> the encyclopedia) as 'static patterns of value' ("patterns") rather than
>> 'truths'.
>
> "More" useful.... This is the old SOM vs MOQ stuff. You pick the right side.
> But nothing new.
Okay, nothing new..
... more below. ...
___
On Apr 15, 2013, at 5:56 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 15 apr 2013 kl. 08.31 MarshaV wrote:
>
>>
>> Greetings J-A,
>>
>> On Apr 14, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> J-A:
>>>>> why should you burn the clay?
>>>>
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> Before (when soft and malleable) and after a firing (when firm), the clay
>>>> is still in a constant state of changing.
>>>
>>> J-A:
>>> Sure, but the important thing about the usefulness, the value, during the
>>> pot's time, is that it is hard enough to keep the content from leaking out
>>> of it.
>>
>> Marsha:
>> A different point-of-view might be that the functioning value of the pot is
>> the empty space inside it.
>
> J-A:
> Hey, Straw man, that was not the question.
What specifically was the question?
>>> You sound like that stablity is constantly inferior to change.
>>
>> Marsha:
>> No, I've made no such judgmental statement.
>
> JA:
> Yes you did by using the words "more useful" which you just accidentally
> snipped out...
The "more useful" was applied to a different context. Please tie them together
so I might understand your point. (see text above)
>>> I say that they are even and that all we know about this ever-change is
>>> patterned.
>>
>> I agree that static patterns of value are objects of knowledge that
>> represent what we conventionally know.
>>
>> Hmmm. Can one know what a pattern is not?
>
> J-A:
> Nothing could be easier: Nothingness, No-thingness. Also, according to your
> ever-changing theology: As everything is under a constant flux of change,
> What a pattern is, now, is not what it was before and not what it will be
> later. So, what a pattern is not is what it was before and it is also what it
> will be in the future. :-)
It is not anti-intellectual or a contradiction to understand that patterns may
maintain a static, stable identity at the same time as they and their context
are undergoing constant change. Think of the Ship of Theseus, or a parade
(Hume) where everyone drops out but is replaced so that the parade is
maintained, or the body with its cells constantly being replaced. Things can
change - flow - and yet have permanence; think of a river. Above all (the MoQ
being in agreement with Radical Empiricism) this definition agrees with my
experience. :-)
I sometimes like to consider a pattern, justice for instance, as all that is
opposite-non-justice. But we've been down this path before.
>
> Have a nice day Marsha and take it easy with that piece of clay
You have a nice day too. And don't squeeze the accordion too much.
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
