Hi Ian, I'm not sure how I responded to is "NATURE is intellect", but 'nature' is a static pattern of value, not an absolute. No matter how forceful he states it, I'm not going to take anything as a given until I consider it fully. I was discussing a level of patterns, and I had the feeling he was discussing 'thinking'. There is something in the way he uses the word 'intellect' that makes me think it's about thinking in general.
One can look at all patterns as 'conceptions', or one can look at what patterns represent, their category or function. I can all too easily toss it all off to conceptual vapor, and go chop wood. But I'm curious to thoroughly understand how it works. If I can. It is not unimportant to the way lives are lived. Am I weird? On May 16, 2010, at 1:02 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: > Arlo, Marsha, > > Marsha, is your problem reacting to Arlo saying this is how it is - > the insulting schoolmasterly impression - because you are missing that > his sentences start with IF ? > > Just logical consequences of the statements of others. > > Ian > > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: >> [Marsha] >> The >> lament >> is >> based >> on >> a >> misconception: >> that >> entities (self & object) >> exist >> independently. >> >> [Arlo] >> Which is... TAADAA!.. SOM! If ALL intellectual patterns are SOM, this is NOT >> a misconception, it is the NATURE of intellect. ___ 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/md/archives.html
