Hi Troy, Squad
>
TROY (Aquarius):
[snip]
>yes indeed. everything we can call a thing is a carrier of value.
even
>words, Jonathan, even words.
Absolutely
[snip]
JONATHAN
>> In summary, I would say that any thought system is OBLIGED to use
>> information carriers.
>
>i don't follow you, and i'm trying really hard to understand this whole
>carrier notion. it doesn't seem to be something i can hang my hat on,
>unless all you're saying is: words stand for meaning. now i'll hang my
>hat right on that, ....
That's it. Words with no meaning are valueless.
>.....but it is irrelevent to Bo's post and my response.
>> Troy is surely wrong when he says "carriers are results of platypi".
>> Platypi are the results of carriers, when the carriers selected prove
to
>> be inappropriate.
>
>in the original thread it was asserted that possibly "interaction",
>"sensation", "emotion", and "reason" acted as carriers of the four
levels
>of static quality, respectively. to me, this is like an elementary
>teacher picking out the A students on the first day. all things save
pure
>Quality (and Dynamic manifestations) fit nicely within our 4 leveled
>structure. "carriers" are teachers' pets.
So what you are saying is that platypi will result if we try to classify
all PoV as "interaction", "sensation", "emotion", or "reason" .
I agree.
>
>note that i am not saying "words are not carriers of meaning." all i'm
>saying is that words and meaning can be treated equal with respect to
>Quality.
What I wrote in my very first contribution back in May was that meaning
and quality are equivalent. I still stand by that.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:33 BST