[MD] Heads or tails?

[Ron Kulp]

[Case]
And here my point is that our understanding of the moon can not be relegated to any fixed set of patterns and to the extent that it can, that is objectively, it becomes ever more sterile. The meaning of the moon is largely determined by its context. The moon is a static pattern of meaning that changes dynamically. I get the feeling that this is the sort of thing Jos and Ron are getting at with topos.

[Ron]
Sure is Case,

"The MOQ is not intended to deny previous modes of understanding as much as to expand them into a more inclusive picture of what it's all about."- From Summary description of the MOQ 
by Robert Pirsig 

***********************************************************************************

1 Introduction
"This paper is the first in a series whose goal is to develop a fundamentally new way of
constructing theories of physics.
The long-term goal of this research programme is to provide a novel framework for
constructing theories of physics in general; in particular, to construct theories that go
'beyond' standard quantum theory, and especially in the direction of quantum cosmology."
-A Topos Foundation for Theories of Physics:
I. Formal Languages for Physics A. D¨oring And C.J. Isham
[Ron]
When in this forum someone points to a "SOMist" method of thinking and terms it as a 
view of understanding that can be changed, I hesitate to agree.
I argue that we are all "SOMists" by nature and MOQ along with Topos theory
(and doubtless many others)merely offer an expansion into a more inclusive 
picture of what it's all about." MOQ and Topos theory rely on the Pragmatic
School of thought of emphisis on the dynamic experience and it's relationships
And places our static apriori definitions subordinate to it.