Marsha: It may be the remembrance of NLP that has me so interested in the nature of patterns. That would be an example of my individual configuration of patterns influencing my curiosity in the MOQ differently than others. Or not. If I have both books, I read the two of them.
Andre: Good for you Marsha, but please ...they are not novels, they are reference books. Just pick a few things, think about them, try them and move on. What I miss in this discuss is thought being given to the thinking process itself. The analysis of how we think...what are the constituent parts of our thinking. The intellectual level has been such a pain in the arse. Well; do something with it! And, when you do think about them, they are our senses. We think in pictures (visual), sounds (auditory) feelings (kinesthetics) and smell and taste (Olfactory). Nobody listens. All these theories about the workings of the brain, where lies what. Psychologists always coming up with this and that, exactly what Pirsig found out in his lab. experiments. During my student days, I have never read a report written by a psychologist that was conclusive in the sense that you could do something with it. It always ended with "More research needs to be done on this". They created their own hypotheses for further research and securing their own positions... . Anyway Whether you are just conversing with your neighbour or intellectualising at some abstract metaphysical level you still use these self same representations. It's all we have. We should not kid ourselves otherwise. ZMM and Lila are full of this..if you look carefully. Einstein said so much, Poincarré said so much, Proust said so much.Bohr said so much. Good night Andre 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/
