Marsha,
It's obvious you don't know what I'm saying and I don't
know what your saying. I do, but I don't. I figure you do as well,
but then you don't as well, too. As you said, "I don't think we
can go any further."
peace,
woods
----- Original Message ----
From: Woods Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:47:24 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] patterns revisited
>woods previously:
> I don't know what you mean. The static part of social patterns are
>social spov's.
Marsha:
I'm saying the content might be inorganic, biological, social or
intellectual, but the vehicle (pattern) is mental.
woods:
The vehicle is mental if that's the direction you want to come at this.
I know as a person that for me to understand a tree, I can do this mentality,
but
as Pirsig noted there is another way to understand called value. I think I'm
trying to come at this "pattern" from a value orientation, not strictly a
mental
orientation that has value, but is not the third understanding in which Pirsig
named
these 3 as physical, mental, and value. A mental orientation has value, but
value
is also inorganic, organic, social, and dynamic. Value is another
understanding that
comes at this, I think, in another way other than strictly mental.
>Marsha previously:
>A phenomena, like a tree, does not exist as an independent entity in
>nature.
>
>woods previously:
> Right. A tree has roots into the earth and breaths air and gets light
>for food from the sun. This isn't a rock. This is a tree.
Marsha:
Nature doesn't differentiate any of these things. Not tree, root,
earth, air, light, food, sun, rock or tree. These names and their
associated definitions are human invention.
woods:
I'm not talking about the names. I'm talking about the value tree,
value root, etc... The names are human inventions. The names are
to come at this from a strictly intellectual spov.
Marsha:
It is human nature to dissect, name and define, but not Nature.
woods:
I'm not dissecting and naming. I can, but that's where I'm trying to
come at this. I could. And it can easily be taken that I am coming
at this in that manner, but I'm not. Pirsig mentioned a mental way to
understand. I'm trying to understand in a value way. Again, mental
is a good way. It has value. But value is not restricted to mental only.
Marsha:
But as we are not separate from Nature, this dissecting, naming, and
defining is a natural process too.
I'm just investigating static patterns of value. I am curious. Does
it matter? Probably not so much. Better to experience the wind pass
across my forehead.
woods:
The wind would be a static pattern of value, that doesn't depend on my
mentality
to create it. I can sit back and experience this wind without breaking it down
as a bird
sings and the comfort of the chair, etc... is all happening at once.
>Marsha previously:
> Nature doesn't differentiate, humans do using static
>patterns.
>
>woods previously:
> A tree differentiates itself from a rock and vice verse.
Marsha:
I do not think a tree experiences itself as a separate entity. Nor a rock.
woods:
A tree is not a rock. Didn't say they were separate. When a rock is
broken down
by tree roots and when rain chemically leeches elements from rocks, a direct
connection between the two is noticed.
>Marsha previously:
> Without the static pattern of value there is no differentiated tree.
>
> woods previously:
> It's not a rock. It's a tree. The tree and rock differentiate
> themselves.
Marsha:
I don't think so. As I said above, a tree doesn't experience having
a self. Neither does a rock.
woods:
A tree is not a rock. Didn't say they had independent self's. They
are very connected.
>Marsha previously:
>I don't think we can go any further. Our understanding of patterns
>is too far apart. Thank you, I've enjoyed the exchange.
>woods previously:
>ok, it seems that way.
Marsha:
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
woods:
Didn't say the universe is caused. Sure they are a net of jewels that
reflect
in each other. This is an interrelated harmony without end. Don't see
why it has to be based in the human mind. That seems to be a cause and self
for you. But I know your not saying a cause and self is here, do you know that
I'm
agreeing with your statement? It seems not.
woods
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
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/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
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/
