I still agree Marsha, and I really am sure I get your point ... believe me I have read and appreciated Nagarjuna - mainly thanks to Paul. I think you are really aiming that last comment at the assembled "western males" ? (I am explaining that position, not defending or asserting it.)
My point is that we nevertheless do depend on "naming" (natural language) when we communicate concepts by e-mail, or in academic essays. DMB's point too about the value that definitions have - notwithstanding your points / Paul's analyses. A Catch-22. If we were standing together, sharing a moonlit night (or a Hawkwind gig), we would have other options for dynamic involvement - just a bit tricky by email. We need to link the more experiential e-mail exchanges that (say) you and SA indulge in, with what "looks like" more rigorous discourse. Ian On 7/21/08, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Glendinning" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:23 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] The Intellectual Gauntlet > > > > > > > It is understandable that confusion is caused by the fact that - to > > paraphrase - we need definitions in order to discuss the real world, > > even if in the real world those definitions are insignificant (or much > > less significant, anyway). > > > > > > > Hi Ian, > > Who here, besides Paul (missing) Turner, has taken the trouble to > investigate the Eastern side of "things"? Nagarjuna to be specific. The > need for the list's type of definitional precision is a symptom of the s/o > pov. Maybe before definition it might be prudent to have a thorough > understanding of what it is you are trying to define: patterns. While > static they may appear, they are still interrelated and ever-changing. They > are in no way things-in-themselves, or independent entities. Patterns > existence is dependent on the value of its functionality. If a pattern's > functionality (this is related to experience) loses value, poof it's gone. > The Social Level is a pattern of patterns, all interrelated and > ever-changing. The Intellectual Level is a pattern of patterns. The "real > world" is a pattern. > > So, what am I trying to say? I think breaking the subject/object > culturally inherited glasses is far more important than naming. Read > Nagarjuna! Or, stop counting fingers and get to the Moon. > > > Marsha > > > > > 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/
