Hi Kevin, I think I now understand the point you were making ... Quality is the mono-"thing" whereas the MoQ is an intellectual pattern (like any metaphysics) based on that mono-thing. I think those of us using langage like "MoQ is a monism", are just using common shorthand for "MoQ is a metaphysics based on a mono-thing."
(I think it's just linguistics - but we have already the idea that it's the intellectual pattern that includes its own definition - the whole in the part) I think you're shifting the (inevitable *) linguistic problem around without necessarily taking things forward. Feel free to show me wrong if you can build something new from this point. * of course it's not entirely inevitable, if like Doug (Renselle) you invent your own language, to avoid such problems, but conversation becomes limited, even within a small closed community like this one, and a complete dead loss in the wider world. Some famous dead geezer said something about private languages ;-) Ian On 2/28/07, Kevin Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Ian, > > > Clearly the MoQ "supports" a S/O view of the world, a dualist view, > > but the whole point is that as a metaphysics it is based on a view > > that says Quality preceeds all subjects and objects. > > Yes. > > > So [the MoQ] is itself a Monism. > > No. Quality is the monism. > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
