FORGIVE ME TO SHIFT MY RESPONSE TO MD BUT I HAVE THE NASTY EXPERIENCE TO GET >BOUNCED ON LS [BEING OFF TOPIC] AND I THINK THIS WHOLE THREAD IS ENTIRELY >OFF TOPIC IT HAS A FAINT HINT TO ARISTO BUT THAT'S ALL. >To All, >It is not true [scientifically proven] that only human have language. Bees >have, dogs have [not barking], ants have. These are languages we know of, >there most be others that we don't have a clue about. >Being a solitary language compatible organism was and still is an excuse for >humans to exploit nature [the other that is]. In the past it was an excuse >to exploit other cultures too, this tendency is not new. >On the other hand RMP opens a new horizon by introducing the term "complex >creature" into our intellectual SPQ [static pattern of quality] layer. >This means among other things that an idea we uttered through language is >our as the charge passing through nerve endings allowing speech is of the >particular nerves involved. >If one leans back and let the idea sink for awhile, one cannot avoid the >connection felt between the question of "who's idea was it" and the habit of >looking for a subject or object to own a quality, known in SOM. >In Intellectual level, the agents are social entities, that create complex >creatures of a new order. So the notion of I utter a word is not of the >intellectual level at all [but of the social level]. >The correct way to look at it would be to see the idea as basic intellectual >utterance, in connection to [inside the boundaries of a] theory. And this >only by an educated [in this particular theory] agent. In any case the >experience is of quality even there, felt by the group who does it >[hopefully now felt by you all, as you read this]. The understanding of this >idea utterance is a breaking down into SPQ. But the main think is the >ideaflow which is prior to ownership according to MoQ. >Another point Denis is right, but it got lost somehow [not enough stressed] >is the crumbling of the subject [of SOM] into many PoV [point of view]. This >has to do with the idea that we have many SPQ to act from and in relation >to, and we act inside them as a matter of habit. My favorite example for it >is to this question: "Why did you never try to fire your mother?" >The answer is that this action [firing] and the term [Mother] never meet in >a single SPQ. >take time to digest >AVID >and don't forget to be gentle >Avid >icq 6598359 and don't forget to be gentle Avid icq 6598359 MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
