[SA previously]
> Ant was covering much of what you are saying
> in recent posts. He
> hasn't just jumped in, but anyways... Your exactly
> right! We do shape
> our pre-intellectual values with static patterns.
> What we incorporate
> pre-intellectually is influenced by intellectual
> patterns (ex. what we
> already know), social patterns (ex. this culture as
> opposed to
> constantly hunting we go to the store), biological
> patterns (ex. I don't
> see or sense heat as a snake does), and inorganic
> patterns (ex. I'm not
> the sun).
> Now, how do you learn? Where does it come from? Is
> there creativity?
> All of what you said above, I believe, doesn't
> mention or answer any of
> these questions, the topics above just cover that
> what we know already
> dictates our experience, thus, we don't learn
> anything new, correct?
> [Ron]
> Hello SA,
> Just seems people are more eager to get into a poo
> slinging contest than
> rationally discuss
> a subject, maybe I'm just jealous of the attention.
> Regargless, how do
> we learn?, I feel our minds
> shape sense data not create it, That's why I feel
> there must be an out
> there to sense, whatever it may be,
> external and internal senses combine in the brain to
> shape a changing
> but continuous experience
> relationally based in the phenomena being sensed. As
> you say, there is
> no logical way
> experience is entirely created from the mind but
> distinction is embeded
> deeper than cultural
> convention. I just think it is a fallacy to believe
> we experience
> undifferentiated experience
> before cultural conventions, I think it is more
> logical to believe that
> cultural and other
> conventions of thought emerge from baser distiction
> of relational
> objects.
> I really think we not can drop it, we can quiet it
> through meditation,
> balance it,
> and become aware of it through the intellection of
> Quality, this is why
> I like
> Bo's idea of SOLAQI emerging from Quality awareness
> it's a pragmatic
> approach to
> the MOQ. and an accurate depiction of how it can be
> used in regard to
> scientific inquiry.
> I find there is a gap between the concept of MOQ and
> the scientific
> employment of it.
> SOLAQI seems to bridge that gap as far as I can
> tell.
> I think mathmatics and analytical logic are
> responsible for the
> exclusivness of absolutes
> in western thinking that exaggerates dualism. These
> concepts, more than
> any, are at the
> root of SOM thinking and are the defining elements
> of it. It gives the
> illusion that
> reality is finite, measurable and ultimately
> knowable leaning heavily on
> the concept
> of objective knowledge .
Ok, you say, "...external and internal senses
combine in the brain to shape a changing but
continuous experience relationally based in the
phenomena being sensed."
Do you think a valuing process is happening?
Thus, a process that is on-going no matter what the
object and no matter what the subject. What is
"relationally bas[ing]" this process?
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
