[MD] Static latching & faith

[ian glendinning]

Hi folks, I've been outta the loop for a few weeks, but this thread
caught my eye. Some good stuff in it.

Just one point in response to SA, possibly repeating Scott's last sentiment.

SA talked of undifferentiated "in that sense".
But clearly in some senses things are worth differentiating.
To say that "everything is (merely) undifferentiated continuum", is
quite different to saying that "there is an undifferentiated
continuum".

If we have no distinctions all we have is the murky "soup".

What we really have is many "levels" - different senses in which we
can differentiate the continuum - where it is useful / pragmatic to do
so. The way the levels interact is the really interesting stuff.

Ian


On 4/27/06, Scott Roberts <jse885 at localnet.com> wrote:
> SA,
>
> > Scott said:
> > All true. But let's call heart knowledge something
> > else, and keep the word
> > 'empirical' for tape recorder knowledge. It's a
> > useful distinction.
>
>  SA said:
>    It is a useful distinction when we want to make
> distinctions.  Yet, in a world that can be debated
> solidly to have distinctions or no distinctions, to
> move out of that SOM into a MOQ takes another kind of
> approach.  So we can SOM or MOQ, which one has to be
> true.  For me, its' the one that is more relaxing and
> has more of a sense of calm while I experience without
> the mind clutter and chose clarity.
>
> Scott:
> Are you saying you are not interested in philosophical distinctions at all?
> In case you haven't noticed, the MOQ is chock full of them. For example,
> Pirsig thought it worth distinguishing the MOQ by calling it 'empirical'.
>
> - Scott
>
> 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/
>