[MD] Food for Thought

[Case]

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

[Case]
Even Wilbur loves the holon. There is no single thing that is not composed
of parts. Each thing, in its whole, in its parts and in its relationships is
composed of patterns of value.

[Dan]
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. 

[Case]
If what you mean is I think the MoQ should have tangible results in the
world then guilty as charged. I thought the MoQ was a pragmatic philosophy.
James and Dewey certainly held that philosophy should be judged by its
consequences.

[Dan]
In addition, I thought the levels are the topic currently under discussion?
Isn't it only proper to put our focus there?

[Case]
I was going along with the level discussion. I talked about language as the
basis of the intellectual level. Arlo said it was about symbol manipulation
and you graciously brought up a Pirsig quote more or less confirming this.
But I also noted the level of confusion the results from trying to classify
anything in whole or in part into these levels generates more heat than
light. But the smoke does make it hard to focus.

[Dan]
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.

[Case]
I am not sure specifically what it is we disagree about. I have been trying
for some time now to show that whether the MoQ is about philosophical
mysticism or not, it also applies directly to the everyday world. It
transcends application to four or five or any number of levels. It is the
Tao where opposites unite. It is Chaos from which order emerges. It's
potency lies not in a warm fuzzy feeling of goodness but in the growth and
dispersal of complex relationships.

To give an example from philosophy of science one of the things that
influence the acceptance of a theory is that theory's capacity to generate
new questions and new areas of research. The holy grail of any science is to
generate ideas that generate more questions that generate new ideas.

In economics, where money is the fluid-energy, the aim is to create a
business process that generates money to create new processes to generate
more money.

It may indeed be about Maya and Oneness. But it is also about probability
distributions and feedback loops. Confining ones vision of it to one is no
less silly that confining it to the other.

I could give more examples but I am told they are irrelevant. Appeals to
sanity, reason and contact with any supposed "reality" are, according to
some, not part of the MoQ. Whether I understand the MoQ or not is certainly
an open question but I sure don't understand that.