[MD] What's Emptiness?

[118]

Hi Ham,

I think I understand your concern.  To say it is a function of I mean that
it is permutations of.  A house is a function of the bricks and how they fit
together.  I suppose from that example we can say that the bricks lead to
the house, but doesn't the house lead to how the bricks are put together?
 So, I am not pointing to anything fundamental (yet).  Conclusions can be
drawn from a more sophisticated equation.  According the physics, the
universe is made up of primary forces; it is defined by them.  We can get
into what side defines which side, but the equation simply states that they
are different ways of expressing the same thing.  The purpose of the
equation is to break up Quality into constituents.

My force equation was just an example of something being defined by
characteristics, which in turn can be further defined.  The intent to to
find some universal constants, which in the case of Quality would be
rhetorical devices (I'm sure John or dmb will correct me on this if I'm
mistaken).

So, a tree is a function of its branches and leaves (and of course much
more), meaning how they are put together.  If you accept the use of
equalities then we can move on to describing how Quality is put together.

Mark

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>
> Mark --
>
>  Quality can be considered in two parts, dynamic and static.
>> This has been termed as DQ and SQ.  From my understanding,
>> SQ is a component of DQ and I have not been made aware
>> of any other components.  So in some way SQ makes up DQ.
>> We start with an inequality:
>>
>> DQ does not equal SQ
>>
>> but
>>
>> DQ = fn(SQ)
>>
>
> Right off the bat you start with what I cannot accept as a valid premise.
>  I do not regard DQ as a "function" of SQ.  Although RMP has not
> specifically defined it as such, my understanding is that DQ is the primary
> source.  I'm not a logician, but can a source be a function of its
> components?  Correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem to me that it's the
> other way around: Constituents are secondary to the Source, therefore
> represent its functions
> -- relations, increments, levels, properties, antimonies, and so on.
>
> In the physical examples you cite (e.g.,  F = ma), the constituents are all
> functions of nature or the universe.  You wouldn't say that the universe is
> a function of force, mass, and acceleration, would you?  Neither can the
> Creator be a function of its creation.
>
>  This initial definition is important because it sets the premise to be
>> constructed.  Of course we can put functions on both sides of the
>> equation, but that would not help much.  So I will use DQ as the
>> overriding term to be defined in the same way that the physics
>> equation for force: F = ma is used (force equals mass times acceleration).
>>
>> Now we have to define the function itself. ...
>>
>
> I'm going to cut off my response here until the basic logic is resolved.
>
> Based on your rationale, it would appear that SQ leads to, or creates, DQ.
> This was the same approach taken by the existentialists Heidegger and Sartre
> who claimed that "existence precedes essence" and determines its outcome. Is
> this your interpretation of the SQ --> DQ theorem?
>
> If I've misunderstood you ontogeny, please let me know.  Otherwise, I don't
> see how I can be of help in working out the details of a concept I don't
> believe in.
>
> Essentially speaking,
> Ham
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
>  DQ = Z(SQ)
>>
>> Where Z is a constant.
>>
>> I don't think that this would fly in this forum.  So perhaps there is an
>> additional variable that can be introduced which we will call iB (this
>> stands for in Between).  In this case either it acts on SQ, or adds to it.
>>
>> DQ = iB + SQ
>>
>>  or
>>
>> DQ = iB(SQ).
>>
>> Now the chore is to break both SQ and IB into measurable (philosophical)
>> components.
>>
>> My attention span at this point is probably the same as yours, and
>> wondering
>> what other posts there are to read besides this nonsense.  So I will stop
>> with that.  The question left on the table is: can we provide further,
>> component based, definitions for SQ?
>>
>> Cheers for now,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
> 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
>