[MD] now it comes

[MarshaV]

Greetings Krimel,

Just for the record, is a pattern a definition, or compilation of 
definitions, or something else?   


Marsha 





On Aug 3, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Krimel wrote:

>> [Mary] had said:
>> The problem is not with the word 'static'.  The problem is with the
>> word 'concepts'. The levels are not 'concepts'. 
> 
> [Krimel]
>> All words are concepts. Seriously, until you get this, you are just
>> pissing in the wind.
> 
> [Bo]
> Mary, does not deny the fact that words are concepts, she just says 
> that the levels aren't concepts. I.e. that DMB's Jamesian "Dynamic 
> Flux/Concepts" doesn't correspond to MOQ's "Dynamic/Static". 
> 
> [Krimel]
> Not only is level a concept it is a concept that aids us in organizing other
> concepts. It is a structural component of a conceptual schema. James breaks
> it down into percepts and concepts. I agree with that. I also thing this
> maps pretty well onto the static/dynamic split. Dave for unspecified reasons
> resists equating dynamic flux with perception but he has been slowly moving
> in the right direction just give him some more time.
> 
> [Bo]
> Language is the sea we swim in and cannot be used as any 
> metaphysical basics. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> This is just a catch phrase for you. The fact that we are immersed in
> language does not mean we can just ignore that fact; nor does it prevent us
> from using language in philosophy and metaphysics. Neither would be possible
> without language. In fact philosophy and metaphysics are just those parts of
> the intellectual level which allow us to inquire into the nature and meaning
> of language and into the nature and meaning of "nature" and "meaning."
> Recursion, you see? That's' the meaning of "meta", BTW.
> 
> [Bo]
> The same goes for "human beings". We can postulate a time before language
> and a time before Homo Sapiens... 
> 
> [Krimel]
> For that we can also look at the social and communicative behaviors of our
> nearest relatives. 
> 
> [Bo]
> ...but not as a basic divide like DMB's "Everything not language/Language"
> or SOM's "Everything not subjective/Subjective". 
> 
> [Krimel]
> At least you are starting to see that there are lots of ways to carve up
> metaphysical space.
> 
> [Bo]
> All such ends in paradoxes: All is conveyed by language, the objective 
> is contained in the subject.
> 
> [Krimel]
> Recursion, reflection and feedback loops are not paradoxical.
> 
> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___