Hi all Been investigatin Joseph Margolis a bit, looks like a fellow traveller from what it says on WIki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Margolis Has he been brought up before, can't remember? Our suggestions about DQ, place it as the ultimate ontological referent, but as Margolis explores, this is a radically different conception from ontologies that are looking for some kind of certainty, essence, substance that can eliminate change. Regards David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Harding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [MD] E/O > Hi Marsha, > > I find it confusing too. And I've put off looking into it further, > but now is as good as time as any to look into it. So I tried the > dictionary, it wasn't any clearer, so I tried the poor mans > encyclopaedia - Wikipedia. It actually gives both concepts with many > example questions so I'll answer a select few of them below. > > Before I do however, I should mention I don't think there is a single > question which can divide both concepts like you request as both > concepts are their own questions themselves. > > > > Epistemology: > ============= > "What do you know?" > > That Quality is fundamental and the source of all things. From this > quality a metaphysics is born called the MOQ. > > "How do you know it?" > > From experience. > > "What is knowledge?" > > Knowledge is static patterns of Intellectual value. > > > Ontology: > ======== > "What is existence?" > > static quality capable of apprehending DQ. > > "Is existence a property?" > > Among other things, yes. > > "What does it mean to say something does not exist?" > > It means you are not talking empirically. Because some thing is > static quality and thus it exists. > > "Why are we here?" > > Because of good. > > "Why does anything exist, rather than nothingness?" > > Mu. Both anything and nothing exists. > > > It would appear to me Marsha, that epistemology is about the source > of knowledge. Thus, the MOQ perspective is that epistemologically, > quality is the source of Intellectual patterns of value. Meanwhile, > ontology is about the source of existence. The MOQ perspective on > this is that ontologically quality is the source of everything. > > Hope this makes things clearer for you. > > Cheers, > > David. > > On 22/06/2007, at 9:01 PM, MarshaV wrote: > >> >> Greetings, >> >> Hmmmm >> >> I'm looking for the differences in evaluating the MOQ from a >> ontological p-o-v versus an epistemological p-o-v. Maybe with an >> example of a question that might demonstrate the difference in >> answers. I find this confusing. >> >> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > 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/ > 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/
