Hi SA, I agree. "Defining things to a T" is never going to provide definitive answers to anything worth doing. Doing them is what matters.
Ian On 10/16/07, Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/ > 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/
