[MD] desires

[John Carl]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:14 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John and Ian,
>

Hi Mark   ;-!



> It seems to me that the point is in asking for clarification.  John's
> question requests such a thing.  If static means everything but
> static, then we need further discussion.  If we say that the
> definition of static is all concepts and objects, then let's just say
> concept and object quality.



You define the problem well.  Problem is, it looks like that's just a new
construction of an old Idealism, and I guess "we" don't wanna go there.  But
you're spot-on with the need for more clarification.  If you're gonna have a
DQ/sq fundament of reality, then finding out one of those terms is NOT
fundamental means you need to reformulate - at least technically speaking.

So... the truth of the equation lies in the relationship of sq to
subjectivity - a category which the MoQ supposedly transcends.  So I can see
how poking "staticity" can raise irritation and annoyance.




> If it means everything that is defined,
> then we can say defined quality.  My sense is that it means more than
> that.  Could somebody please clarify?
>
>

Yup.  I'm with you.  But then,  I'm digging back through my boxes, and it
takes a while.  Hopefully somebody will have an idea.


JCP