[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[MarshaV]

Hi John,  


On Nov 29, 2010, at 12:26 PM, John Carl wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:33 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> Sorry, I misunderstood.  I thought you meant language as in 'words' or
>> the English language.
>> 
> No apology necessary, Marsha.  After all, that is the normal understanding
> of "language".  But I'm thinking of stuff like, computer language after its
> been compiled - machine language its called  It's not comprehensible to
> humans but still is a language.  

I've worked with Assembly language when I first started in 1974.  You're 
suggesting the computer analogy.   

> Likewise, DNA is codified information such
> that it could be called its own language.  In this sense of "language", it's
> the anti-entropic, linguistic flip that signifies the DQ turn and once it's
> going, it just keeps building up analogy upon analogy infinitely.

And in Descartes' day, the clockwork analogy was used.  


> Biocentrism postulates that time and space are conceptually constructed by
> animal consciousness.  I'd say then what is meant by "constructed", is the
> narrative order imposed by this kind of "language".
> 
> Language is Quality.


According to the MoQ, it's all Quality.  


Marsha

 
___