From: Simon Magson (twix_570@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 17 2004 - 13:35:14 GMT
Sam Norton put it like this:
>Let me put it like this: if there is a pattern of value that can be
>classified in the MoQ schema,
>which corresponds to what we call a person (eg 'Jane Doe') then my concerns
>are all overcome.
There isn't *a* pattern of value which corresponds to what we call a person.
You are looking for a person-in-itself - irreducible, indivisible,
self-sufficient, self-sustaining, and independent of everything else. This,
to my knowledge, has never been found in the real world, or if it has, has
never been shared with the rest of the world in a way that has been properly
understood or accepted. It is a figment of literary and religious
imagination. Can you correct me on this?
But of course there are people in the MOQ, I find it strange that you would
suggest otherwise, it is just that when describing everything in terms of
kinds of quality, rather than physical bodies, names or job titles, people
are a combination of different kinds of quality, as are many 'things'. I
think the MOQ is a lot more down-to-earth than a lot of people on this forum
seem to think it is. It is a self-described pragmatic proposition, after
all.
I think you would have to postulate a metaphysics of soul, or spirit, or
something, to get what you want. A metaphysics in which the individual human
is the most important and central thing in the universe simply by being an
individual human.
SM
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 17 2004 - 13:39:40 GMT