I understand what your suggesting here as to the
overlapping process of what instigates the other, as
in the river or the river bed. Yet, I find
intellectualizing to be dynamic made static. The
example below about moq is not som, Ian, is an
intellectual pattern. I'm not denying this, but I'm
finding this kind of intellectualizing that searches
for what intellectual is - pointless. It gets more
and more static when practiced this way. More and
more stuck is probably a better way to put it. I see
a difference between (a) 'what is intellect', and (b)
'intellect in practice'. The experience of
intellectualizing, and while I'm at it, socialization,
biological processes, and organic processes are more
dynamic than trying to define them to the T. No
matter how much we want to know what they are, we'll
still go on 'doing them' without a definitive answer.
SA
[Ian]
> Ron's interpretation of what I meant is spot on.
>
> One example was in my original post
> MoQ is not SOM
> Intellect is the pattern known as SOM
> MoQ is an intellectual pattern
>
> Looks illogical in terms of traditional (analytical)
> logic. (We'd have
> to frame it more precisely to prove anything, but
> you get the idea,
> and it is the problem Bo alluded to.)
>
> Another example is
> The route of a river bed is created by the river
> that flows in it.
> The course of a river is constrained by the bed it
> flows in.
>
> Sounds like circular causation - traditional logic
> says they can't both be true.
>
> In both cases the problem is the time axis omitted
> from the word "is".
> Being is more about becoming, and in reality we have
> evolutionary
> processes at work with patterns that exist / arise
> somewhere else
> other than in any of the "objects" the assertions
> start with.
>
> In the case of the river - the typical meander
> pattern, or the typical
> canyon pattern, (or some other common pattern)
> neither of which
> existed in either the water or the land to begin
> with, but in the
> evolutionary process of interaction.
>
> In the case Ron refers to Bo ... it's more an
> (dynamic) intellectual
> release from the constraints of (static) intellect.
>
> I don't see this as any magic door opening going on.
> Just a clue that
> when logic looks circular / illogical, don't
> conclude it's wrong, just
> assume you've missed a dynamic process, or the time
> axis, from your
> consideration.
>
> Ian
> 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/
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
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/
