Hi Marsha, Marsha: > There are times when an email forum seems totally inadequate. I sense > deep caring and I naturally want to respond. I have not challenged your > thesis, but admire your motive and effort. > > What dispute would you like to help resolve? Can you first set up the > problem, as you interpret it? >
Well what I saw was a lot of debate about whether static patterns are purely intellectual, whether everything is just an analogy, whether ideas come before matter or vice versa, etc. The problem I see is that this ignores, in my opinion, the basic point made by the MOQ that reality is just what is valued, "reality" is itself subordinated to value. When you start from that it is no longer necessary to say, for example, that static patterns are really just this or that, whether inorganic patterns really existed before humans. By recognising two contexts or perspectives we can value both sides of the debate as and when appropriate without claiming either is ULTIMATELY better or more true than the other. This hopefully shifts the focus onto how the MOQ can be successfully applied to other areas of inquiry and interest by selecting the best context for the specific purpose, rather than arguing one against the other. Now it may be possible to formulate a single context which covers the value of both but I haven't seen it. Paul 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
