[MD] Patterns

[MarshaV]

>At 02:13 PM 9/20/2008, you wrote:
>>Marsha,
>>Not sure I agree with your phenomenal / conceptual split, but I would
>>say all ontology is conceptual anyway.
>>Ian
>
>Hi Ian,
>
>Yes, that is what I am saying, it is all conceptual.  All patterns 
>are conceptual.  I wasn't sure if the phrase 'ontological identity' 
>was proper.  As I understand it 'ontological identity' would be 'its 
>nature', or the nature of all patterns.  But I still wasn't sure if 
>I was using the word correctly.
>
>I'm using the word phenomenal to say that inorganic and biological 
>patterns referent is external and initially experienced through the 
>five senses regardless of the fact that it is a conceptual 
>pattern.   Does that make sense?
>
>It seems to me that social and intellectual patterns would be 
>conceptual all the way through.  Patterns whose referent has only 
>been conceptual.
>
>Just wondering what others think?  Dancing is biological, yes?  If a 
>person is dancing alone it is biological.  If two people or more are 
>dancing it has a social aspect.
>
>I have way too many questions.
>
>Thanks for responding.
>
>Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>>On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:26 AM, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Question:
>> >
>> > Would you say that the ontological identity of patterns(all spovs) is
>> > conceptual?   That would be regardless whether they were related to
>> > phenomenon (inorganic & biological) or purely conceptual (social &
>> > intellectual).
>> >
>> > I'm just trying to think this through, and I'd love to know what 
>> you think.
>> >
>> >
>> > Marsha

.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.