Greetings Tim, Sorry to be so unsociable . I was on my way out the door, and typed a fast and not too friendly response.
I admire Ham's accomplishment, and want to agree with him on some aspect of a proprietary self, but other than a convention built on assumptions, I just cannot agree. Marsha On Dec 10, 2010, at 11:57 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2010, at 8:08 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> [Tim] >> so, it seems we can get to: "The critical point, however, is that >> conscious awareness (sensibility) and the intellect by which it >> functions are proprietary to the individual self" without (recognizing) >> a '..."uniform, unchanging, and limitless" Source' called 'essence'. I >> wonder if you could convince Marsha to incorporate 'proprietary' into >> her definition of self? I think so: '...interdependent, proprietary, >> impermanent..." > > > > Marsha: > There seems to be a stream of interconnected bits and pieces of pattern, > but no underlying entity that represents a proprietor. ___ 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
