At 07:46 AM 11/15/2008, you wrote:
Marsha:
Well Andre, I don's see where you need assistance. As far as I'm
concerned you have it right. Quality is indivisible, undefinable and
unknowable. But we divide it, define it and claim knowledge of it
anyway. That's the conventional way. Once you realize this isn't it
a marvel?
Andre:
Thank you Marsha, and further to the Frogs into princes stuff, please
correct me if my interpretation of NLP does not ring true, look right or
feel okay for you ( I have to use my memory, not having the books with me).
It seems to me that nlp is directed towards social/psychological
problem solving, but does sound even more interesting when considered
from a DQ/sq perspective. I haven't found The Structure of Magic
yet. I'm thinking it might expand application.
And my other twist to Roger Waters' 'Give any species too much rope and
they'll fuck it up' is substitute the word 'species' for level.
I'm not sure what you mean???
Marsha
p.s. My constructed and remembered visual were opposite of the
"norm" that's why I was looking for information on ocular
dominance. - And I noticed that RMP has used the word 'sound' a lot
in LILA. Very auditory, though I haven't investigated in an great detail.
.
.
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.
.
.
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/
