> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Peter Lennox
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 December 2000 10:59
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: MD things and their relationships
>
>
> Dear pzeph,
> I think what chris is getting at is that the study of the gooey stuff is
> pertinent to the study of meatphysics (oops, I love those typos: I meant
> "metaphysics"!) precisely because the two are reciprocal; the "all that we
> know" is exactly the all that we can know (so far), given what we know it
> with (: the gooey stuff). So, as with all objects, processes and
> relationships, metaphysics doesn't exist in a vacuum (well, get
> away!), and
> its useful to consider it from a variety of perspectives.
> Is that right, Chris?
... not only the variety but also the SINGLE hidden perspective of
object/relationship distinctions. This area is a world of SAMENESS, more
linked to the SPECIES and as such is difficult to deal with (until now? :-))
Metaphysics is a discipline and as such will create its own lexicon but
those words all point to the SAME patterns of emotion we share as a species
with local nuances favouring subtle differences at the cultural/personal
levels.
By understanding the SAMENESS across disciplines so well worn paths in one
discipline can be used to flesh out paths in another since the METHOD of
analysis is the same - the lexicons reflect FREE WILL -- you can call things
anything you like, the patterns of emotion behind the words reflect
DETERMINISM in that the concept of a 'whole' has a general feeling that is
species wide and so MANY words all point to the 'same' feeling.
> p.s. - thanks for the references.
Cool.
> I wrote earlier to defend Chris's use of apostrophes around the word
> "object" becasue
> a) I'm a firm believer in the spurious use of the apostrophe;if in doubt,
> put 'em in (I think there's a whole website devoted exactly to
> this issue!),
> and
> b) the whole concept of the concreteness of certain "things" in
> our universe
> (ref whitehead) is exactly what needs continual questioning.
Sure, there is a transformation process at work, oscillations etc but
interestingly enough, in all of this dynamics there does seem to be elements
of 'the hard coded object'...
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST