Of course statements about nature are static, Marsha. As is the word "nature". But isn't that a bit nonsensical to assert because our finger is pointing, the moon is encapsulated?
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 8:21 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Carl, > > I'm fine with nature. I'm fine with RMP's statements, but consider > this, those were patterned (conventional) statement. > > > Marsha > > > > > > > On May 16, 2010, at 11:09 AM, John Carl wrote: > > > Marsha, > > > > Please consider the following dialogue carefully and reconsider the > > formulation you posted. Is Quality Static? > > > > Copleston: > > > > Is man merely a child of Nature? > > > > Pirsig: > > > > Yes. Quality is nature. > > > > Copleston: > > > > Or is there in him a spiritual principle which makes knowledge possible, > > whether it be knowledge of Nature or moral knowledge?� > > > > Pirsig: > > > > The MOQ says there is no spiritual principle in man that makes knowledge > > possible. Nature does the whole job. > > > > On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 7:57 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hello John, > >> > >> I think that nature is one of the most dynamic static patterns, > >> but it's still pattern applied to DQ. > >> > >> > >> Marsha > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On May 16, 2010, at 10:04 AM, John Carl wrote: > >> > >>> Marsha, Marsha, Marsha. > >>> > >>> Nature is a static pattern? Then you believe everything is. I can't > >>> imagine anything more dynamic than nature. > >>> > >>> At least the nature we have here in California, but I'm quite sure its > >> the > >>> same everywhere. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:25 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> 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. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Just this morning I was thinking about my earlier discussion with Horse > >> and > >>> Arlo on the dividing line between intellect and intelligence, and how > >> that > >>> fits with know-how vs. know-that and it sems very clear to me this > >> morning > >>> that know-how is intelligence and know-that is intellect. > >>> > >>> An amoeba knows how to avoid a puddle of acid, but it doesn't know that > >> it's > >>> avoiding a puddle of acid. Know-how is biological and know-that is > >> human. > >>> > >>> Doesn't it all just sort of dovetail together nicely? I feel like I'm > >>> getting a really solid metaphysical understanding (know-that) here. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> 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? > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Compared to normal people, probably. Compared to me and others on MD, > >> no. > >>> > >>> Chopping Wood? Today is the day for gardening. Nature beckons! > >>> > >>> take care, > >>> > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > > 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 > > > > ___ > > > 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 > 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
