[MD] the meaning Hobbes's meaning

[Platt Holden]

Hey David Swift:

> >DS says: Thanks for making the distinction. Are you all in agreement 
> >that TiTs don't exist in MoQ? Have you gone completely over to the 
> >idealism of Schopenhauer? If so what sense do you make of the inorganic
> >SQ  level?

[Marsha]
> Greetings David,
> For me there are no TiTs, not even on the Inorganic Level.  Not rocks,
> not
> mountains, not atoms are discreet entities.  No phenomenon, no static
> patterns of value have inherent existence.  I am not a Materialist or an
> Idealist.  Rocks, mountains and atoms exist conventionally, but are empty
> of  inherent existence.

{DS]
> Hello Marsha,
> This a puzzling development. How can the first static quality level
> exist
> without TiTs? And how can anything be conventional and how can we talk
> to
> each other without the third level? -david swift

Pirsig in his notes to the Copleston paper: "In the MOQ there are no things 
in themselves."  

http://robertpirsig.org/Copleston.htm

Platt