[MD] dualism redux

[Kevin Perez]

Hello Ian,
 
> Hi Kevin, I think I now understand the point you were making ...
> 
> Quality is the mono-"thing" whereas the MoQ is an intellectual pattern
> (like any metaphysics) based on that mono-thing. I think those of us
> using langage like "MoQ is a monism", are just using common shorthand
> for "MoQ is a metaphysics based on a mono-thing."
 
You're probably right.  And I'm sure I'm being too precise.
 
> (I think it's just linguistics - but we have already the idea that
> it's the intellectual pattern that includes its own definition - the
> whole in the part)
 
You'll have to break this one down.  Sounds a bit fishy to me.
 
> I think you're shifting the (inevitable *) linguistic problem around
> without necessarily taking things forward. Feel free to show me wrong
> if you can build something new from this point.
 
Going forward would depend on where one sees onself; on a journey or at
the journey's end.  From a "the MoQ is everything" point of view it would look
like the journey's end.  Better to use "interaction is everything" language, imo.
Besides, I have no interest in exploring SPOV.  ZAMM was so much better
than Lila.
 
> * of course it's not entirely inevitable, if like Doug (Renselle) you
> invent your own language, to avoid such problems, but conversation
> becomes limited, even within a small closed community like this one,
> and a complete dead loss in the wider world.
 
Wait just a minute.  You're the one who's saying "MoQ is a monism" is
synonymous with "MoQ is [...] based on a mono-thing."
 
Precisely,
 

Kevin

 
---------------------------------
Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and 
always stay connected to friends.