[MD] The Menu/Reality issue

[MarshaV]

At 03:47 AM 11/18/2008, you wrote:
>Marsha
>
>Re your famous "afterthoughts"
>
>17 Nov:
>
> > How about map pattern and terrain pattern?
>
>A glib reply is that both are inorganic, the paper of a map is "dead"
>organic material and the ink ?? The terrain is surely inorganic.
>
> > How about a pattern not being either a subject or an object?
>
>Such a pattern is either inorganic, biological or social because all
>intellectual patterns are S/O.
>
>This reminds me of the Medieval Conciles discussing number of
>angels on pinpoints. Let's not bring the MOQ down to that "level".

Greetings Bo,

To me a pattern is a conventional, conceptual construct.  It is an 
analogue, experience, generality and expectation.  Patterns are 
interrelated and interconnected and therefore your definition of the 
map pattern and terrain pattern is incomplete.  -  I do not accept a 
subject/object dichotomy.  I do, though, wonder why you can't get 
past it.

What does your Medieval Conciles comment have to do with 
anything?  Are you trying to pump up your authority with such a 
comment?  And why should you determine the correct course of this discussion?


Marsha




.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a 
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.