On Nov 15, 2010, at 8:26 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi Arlo, > > OK, two as symbolic language. I have no problem with that, I just didn't > understand what you were talking about. > > I will drop the interpretation angle too. Sometimes it seems that I read > Pirsig differently than others, but that is my problem. > > Thanks, > Mark > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > >> [Mark] >> Could you give me an example of an abstract symbol that has no >> corresponding particular experience? >> >> [Arlo] >> "Two". Or "two-ness" if you prefer. >> >> >> Pirsig's "goal" in the MOQ was to expand the nature of rationality, not to >> condemn it. Intellect=SOM condemns rationality ipso facto. Do you feel your >> Intellect=SOM points us towards a better solution than Pirsig was after? >> > > [Mark] > No I do not believe it is SOM, SOM comes out of the intellect but does not > represent it. SOM is used for communication, but not for awareness. > Intellect is also involved in awareness. That is, what happens before > thoughts are constructed. > > IMO of course, > Mark
Hi Mark, Is awareness a pattern, an intellectual static pattern of value? Not in my experience. One may be aware of a pattern flowing through mind, but the awareness is different. But these words are not right either, so never mind. Marsha ___ 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
