[MD] Food for Thought

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>Subject: Re: [MD] Food for Thought
>Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:53:20 -0500
>
>Dan, Arlo, Anybody,
>
>If the distinction between levels is this unclear and if a single thing can
>reside in multiple levels, and sometimes it's this and sometimes that, what
>is the point?

The point is that there is no single 'thing' that exists independently of 
every 'thing' else. Patterns of value are not 'things' or objects.

>
>It seems few philosophers can resist a foray into the taxonomy of
>abstractions but it always a dicey business. Mandelbrot showed that even
>classifying space into rigidly define dimensions of length, width and 
>height
>is flawed.

I don't know enough to comment.

>
>Conversely I can think of few systems, situations, events or things that 
>can
>not be fruitfully examined by asking what is fixed and what is changing.
>What will hold still and what will wiggle? Pirsig's notion of static and
>dynamic as the first metaphysical cut from the undefined is a significant
>advance over SOM. I would suggest that focusing on levels and mystifying 
>the
>dynamic is what keeps the MoQ on the fringe.

I find I do not share your vision of the MOQ so it's difficult to follow the 
above passage. You seem fixated on systems, situations, events, and things 
which is all very SOMish. In addition, I thought the levels are the topic 
currently under discussion? Isn't it only proper to put our focus there?

I guess I am more than a bit disappointed to see (what I perceive to be) so 
little understanding of the MOQ reflected in your posts. I am stopped from 
replying as I would have to go all the way back to the beginning to form 
some sort of rapport and I just don't have the time or patience. It's all 
rather frustrating as I am sure it's my intellectual shortcoming and not 
yours.

Thank you for your comments,

Dan