On Jun 24, 2010, at 10:16 PM, Mary wrote: > Hi Bo, Marsha, Craig, and all, > >> >>>> Having had such a realization, it's easy >>>> for him to say!!! I don't think making an intellectual switch from >>>> objects (thing-in- itself) to patterns (ever-changing, relational, >>>> unbounded, impermanent) does the trick. >> >> If you mean that Pirsig did not dare repeat the intellect=SOM in LILA >> because it had once sent him to the hospital? If so I agree most >> vehemently. >> >>> [Mary Replies] >>> Agree with that! Changing one intellectual construction for another >>> is to pay lip service. Doesn't change a thing. >> >> Hmm, had I just been sure what this means. At least, the "orthodox" >> intellectual level is much like SOM's MIND and consequently >> everything becomes "mind-intellectual constructions". But MOQ's 4th. >> level as SOM is a QUALITY construction! >> > [Mary Replies] > I took Marsha's statement to be along the lines of: just making the > _intellectual_ switch from calling things subjects and objects to calling > them patterns of value is still to replace one SOMish type analogy with > another. It's easy to _intellectually_ call things patterns of value > without having any appreciation for how that might differ from calling those > same things subjects and objects.
Marsha: Yes, this is exactly what I meant, and why I've spent so much time investigating the nature of all patterns. ___ 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
