Hi Mark, I consider static patterns of value from two different points of view. One would be the nature of ALL patterns: interdependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized. A second would be by categorization according to their evolutionary function: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.
Thank you. Marsha On Oct 27, 2011, at 12:43 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi Marsha, > > Whatever, at least I now understand your foundational premise. I can now > read your posts with that understanding. Let me know if it changes... > > Mark > > On Oct 27, 2011, at 9:31 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 26, 2011, at 9:29 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:05 PM, 118 wrote: >>>>>> , >>>>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>>>> Where did I say that ALL knowledge was intellectual in nature??? I >>>>>>>> never made such a claim. You must be the one confused. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>> It was in the quotes you provided. Perhaps you want to reconsider? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>> Provide the quotes!!! I have never stated that all knowledge was from >>>>>> the intellectual level. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 27, 2011, at 1:13 AM, 118 wrote: >>>> >>>>> Mark: >>>>> I may be mistaken, but those quotes you provide say many things. It was >>>>> the one which broke a car up into a set of seats. Are you saying that >>>>> that author was incorrect with his analogy? If so, you should qualify >>>>> the quotes you provide, otherwise I have to assume they are speaking for >>>>> you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> Provide my email with the quote!!! >>>> >>>> >> >>> Mark: >>> You know exactly what I am referring to. >>> >>> But, now I know that when you speak of "knowledge" you are not referring to >>> the intellectual variety. I am glad we cleared this up, your use of quotes >>> can be misleading, and sometimes I do not understand what point you are >>> trying to make since you provide no explanation. >>> >>> The James's quote refers to the conceptual variety. If you see this >>> differently, let me know. And no, I do not have to remind you of what you >>> posted by reading back to you your post. >>> >>> >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> Baloney! >> >> The quote is quite clear. The James quote states "all knowledge" NOT >> "intellectual knowledge". Have you been taking Dave Buchanan lessons again? >> >> >> >> “It was classic William James, imbued with a sense of the relativism of all >> knowledge, a respect for and curiosity about alternative perspectives, an >> instinct to analyze clearly and thoroughly but to develop a synthesis >> wherever possible, and a conviction that the truth of any idea or thing is >> best understood by observing its action in the world. >> >> >> 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 > 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
