[MD] desires

[Jan-Anders]

Hi Dan

Well described, not too short and not too long, and the message is clear 
to me. But is it a good chair?

I think that the goodness (Quality) of the chair and every single part 
of it, is depending on a balance between it's amount of ingredients 
(mass, energy), between its form (pattern) and between the functional 
(pragmatic) value of every single piece of the chair to the next piece.

Flat chair, no good

J-A

Dan wrote 2011-03-16 20.04:
> Hello everyone
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:14 AM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net>  wrote:
>> >
>> >  On Mar 16, 2011, at 2:56 AM, Dan Glover wrote:
>> >
>>> >>  Dan:
>>> >>  In the framework of the MOQ, there are no supernatural entities like
>>> >>  spirit and soul. The MOQ is empirical. "The many" refers to static
>>> >>  quality patterns of value which are defined and discrete. Experience
>>> >>  (or awareness if you prefer) refers to Dynamic Quality which is both
>>> >>  undefined and infinitely definable.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >  Hi Dan,
>> >
>> >  How are static patterns of value "defined and discrete"?
> Hi Marsha
>
> Take a chair as an example... lets make it the chair I'm sitting in
> now. I am sure everyone here has seen such a chair. It is defined as
> an office chair. It has an elongated back, plastic arms, and rolls
> around (should I find the need) on little plastic rollers. It is
> covered with some kind of cloth, perhaps synthetic though I am not
> sure. It is comfortable and useful. It is disrete from everything else
> that is around it... the table my computer rests upon, the computer I
> am writing on, and the rest of the world.
>
> It is important to remember though that within the framework of the
> MOQ, the chair is a static pattern of value, not an object. The chair
> is not just a comglomeration of plastic, metal, and cloth. Someone
> intellectually thought of the chair and someone else manufactured it.
> Still someone else sold the chair. The chair is a discrete part of the
> inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual value that makes up
> the world yet it is in no way independent of the world.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dan