Hello Ian, > 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." You're probably right. And I'm sure I'm being too precise. > (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) You'll have to break this one down. Sounds a bit fishy to me. > 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. Going forward would depend on where one sees onself; on a journey or at the journey's end. From a "the MoQ is everything" point of view it would look like the journey's end. Better to use "interaction is everything" language, imo. Besides, I have no interest in exploring SPOV. ZAMM was so much better than Lila. > * 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. Wait just a minute. You're the one who's saying "MoQ is a monism" is synonymous with "MoQ is [...] based on a mono-thing." Precisely,
Kevin --------------------------------- Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends. 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/
