[MD] Patterns s/o or relationship???

[MarshaV]

Ron,

I agree with you.  It's impossible to find the words, and why 
understanding the nature of these patterns (word-labels) is 
........    There is no common assumption.  At their most 
understandable they're relationship, but in the end they are so much 
dust in the wind.  If you want to be the hammerer on top, be my 
guest.  A hammer is not as elegant as an X Acto Knife.  I was just 
trying to communicate with Platt.

As far SOL being obsolete for MOQ'ers, I was thinking of yet-to-be 
MOQ'ers.  And Earth to Ron, many physicists do not know other than 
s/o with lots of space.


Marsha





At 01:43 PM 5/5/2009, you wrote:
>Platt, Marsha,
>  Basically that is what she is saying only she uses the term relationship
>which is commonly understood as interaction between objects, but, she
>already states that what we assume as objects are actually greater sets
>of relationships, relationships of relationships or a better word for what
>she is describing is value.
>
>As I keep hammering on, common assumptions about common terms
>in our culture is what creates philosophical paradox , the failure
>of rationalism. Our language is based on the grammatic predication
>of subjects and objects. So even when we hear the term relationships
>we automatically conceptualize the interaction of objects and have difficulty
>even forming concepts about entityless abstractions. The same goes for value,
>The terms "value" and "relationship" are almost meaningless without
>the conventional conception of objects.
>Physicists have understood the inherent emptiness of reality for the past
>60-70 yrs but has yet to percolate to the public.
>This is why SOL is redundant and obsolete, as MoQists
>we already know this, physicists already know this.
>Pirsig uses the lingual distinction of Dq/Sq just to avoid
>essentialism in conception.
>
>-Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: "plattholden at gmail.com" <plattholden at gmail.com>
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:16:19 AM
>Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns s/o or relationship???
>
>On 5 May 2009 at 6:56, MarshaV wrote:
>
> >
> > Are all physicist as enlightened as this one???
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRduOpj1R7c&feature=related
> >
> >
> > 4:05 minutes
>
>Marsha,
>
>Don't you think this physicist would be more enlightened if she had
>acknowledged the role of values in the structure of the universe?
>Emphasizing relationships and interconnections as she does strikes me as
>assuming an S/O premise.
>
>Thanks for the link.
>
>Platt
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

.
_____________

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