Good day Marsha
The question is in there:
Why should you burn the clay?
What is the difference between before burning and after?
The empty space inside has nothing to do with the question and this emptiness
is not changed during the burn. I would also place a warning to talk about
empty space inside something in a philosophic forum because it can awake bad
association paths by your opponents.
It's all about betterness, Marsha. Why is it better with a firm teapot than a
soft and malleable?
You're one of those I know that have read MALC twice and you should well know
how this betterness is connected to the four laws of Thermodynamics. You said
you liked the ride down from the top, didn't you?
"Quality is not just some abstraction; it's something that guides your life
every minute of every second [of every day] even though you do not
intellectually recognize that it is so. .... " (snipped in from another post by
Ant this beautiful morning in May.)
:-)
Jan Anders
btw
I think some people here should show some respect for the challenge you
give'em. Without your posting MD would be a dry and dusty place and I enjoy
dmb's excellent replies to you very much. I think you are a good grindstone for
his intellectual edge. Without that respect the dialogue will not longer be
fruitful as it then turns over to be a pure destructive issue.
3 maj 2013 x kl. 09.04 MarshaV wrote:
>
> 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
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
