[Marsha] There is snow, and there are snowflakes. Which concept is correct by the MOQ point-of-view?
[Arlo] Both. It's a matter of pragmatic focus. But I want to clarify that the "individual-collective" rhetorical division is somewhat different than "snowflake-snow". "Snow" is really nothing more than the physical accumulation of many snowflakes. There is no mutually-transformative, and mutually generative, relationship between them as there is between "(bodily-kinesthetic) individual-collective". Also bear in mind that there are "individuals" and "collectives" on every MOQ level. This is why it is mostly a level of focus. Is there an "individual" human body? Or is there a collective of cells? There is both, to be sure. I suppose if you go all the way down to most minimal, functionally indivisible inorganic pattern, there you find the only real completely "individual" patterns in the MOQ. From those "individual" minute inorganic patterns, all other patterns arise from their collective activity. Sometimes it is simply a quantitative growth. Single cells to small mammals, for example. Although there is a functional difference, and an increase in complexity and active possibility, both patterns (cellls and small mammals) remain biological patterns. Snowflakes and snow is a quantitative variance. Occasionally, as it turned out, there is a qualitative growth. Along with increased complexity and active possibility comes something drastically "new". These are the MOQ's level distinctions. When inorganic pattern collectives allowed the emergence of "simple" biological patterns. When biological pattern collectives gave rise to the emergence of social patterns of value. Etc. 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/
