[MD] dualism redux

[ian glendinning]

Hi Kevin,
Perhaps I'll just try to make the one response to both the fishy bit
and the journey's end.

Journey's end (enlightenment) is arriving at a place where you can see
the journey has no end. (Reality / life is a never ending and evolving
process of interactions, where subjects objects, means, ends, causes,
etc are our pragmatic lingustic conveniences, etc.)

The MOQ is "final" in the sense that it includes the definition of
it's own future. It is an intellectual pattern that defines how future
patterns may evolve.

The part which includes the whole.
(A beautiful, cosmological-scale Quine.)

Ian

On 2/27/07, Kevin Perez <kjp_on_moq at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
>