What's the underlying assumption? Self and other?
:WHAT do you do if, when you get to a subway platform, you see that it is
already packed with people? Do you join the throngs to wait for the train, or
do you shake your head and seek an alternative way to get where you’re going?
If you
Marsha said:
All static patterns of value have been molded by this [self-object (dualistic)]
conditioning.
Arlo replied:
More appropriate to say, All MY static patterns of value have been molded by
this [self-object (dualistic)] conditioning. That would be accurate.
According to Pirsig,
Greetings,
I understand it to be the Buddhist (imho) view that the self-object (dualistic)
point-of-view is perpetuated in two ways. One is as acquired through learning,
from family, friends and teachers, an informal system of philosophy or
psychology - culture - that teaches that the person
Greetings,
I understand it to be the Buddhist (imho) view that the self-object
(dualistic) point-of-view is perpetuated in two ways. One is as acquired
through learning, from family, friends and teachers, an informal system of
philosophy or psychology - culture - that teaches that
Hi J-A,
On Oct 1, 2013, at 4:42 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com
wrote:
Marsha:
I understand it to be the Buddhist (imho) view that the self-object
(dualistic) point-of-view is perpetuated in two ways. One is as acquired
through learning, from family, friends and
[Marsha]
All static patterns of value have been molded by this [self-object (dualistic)]
conditioning.
[Arlo]
More appropriate to say, All MY static patterns of value have been molded by
this [self-object (dualistic)] conditioning. That would be accurate.
According to Pirsig, subject-object
Arlo,
On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:28 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
[Marsha wrote]
I understand it to be the Buddhist (imho) view that the self-object (dualistic)
point-of-view is perpetuated in two ways. One is as acquired through learning,
from family, friends and teachers, an
Hi Dan,
With that settled, I think the last line,Not necessarily stoned, but
beautiful...is not as enigmatic. In plain English more like To be clear,
little girl, I'm not necessarily asking you if you've been stoned but have
you experienced sex. I have experience both. Want some lessons?
Dave
Everyone's right...
Hendrix - A hippie -
The Hippie rejection of social and intellectual patterns left just two
directions to go: toward biological quality and toward Dynamic Quality. The
revolutionaries of the sixties thought that since both are antisocial, and
since both are
Hi all
Well, dmb, Ant, Khoo, you forced me to put the original record on my gold
colored Marantz TT 120 Static Vinyl Pattern Decoder. The picture in mind that
comes up when listening is associated with a visit long ago to France and a
certain french bathroom in Marseille. (the kind with just a
Hello David, Ant, dmb, and all
Well, according to the Jimi Hendrix biography by Mary Willix (Voices
from Home) the song 'Are You Experienced' is about a 15 year old girl
who Jimi had the hots for. Guess Jimi ain't around to ask so I don't
know for sure one way or another.
Anyway,
Dan
On Tue,
Jan Anders Andersson stated February 8th:
People are different and so are bathrooms. Most bathrooms are equipped with at
least one mirror. Some bathroom mirrors are covered by a huge smiley or a photo
of a film star to disquise the real picture of the spectator. But you all know
how hard it
Hi Ant,Jan
I think you might consider the SEX part in the sex, drugs, and rock roll
tripartite. With Hendrix drugs rock roll were a constant, but if you
re-listen as though it's a come-on to some sweet golden beauty he was
asking, Are you experienced? I think it will click.
Makes sense to me
Hi David, Ant, Jan,
Oh, no doubt about it, David. I mean, listen to the words of the song:
But first... are you ex... perienced? Have you ever been experienced?
Well... I haaave. And the throbbing beat of the music is classic
Hendrix. Yep. Sex, drugs, and rock and roll.
Enlightenment? No, sorry
There is a sexy quality to the beat and the vocal performance but I'm with Ant
on this one. Oddly, it's because the lyrics say something like are you
experienced? Well, I am. And I can prove it, then the lyrics stop for a while
and you just hear the pure aesthetic expressiveness of his guitar
Howdy people
Some week ago I presented an experiment with a portrait of yourself and a
mirror. The experiment was to put them beside each other and to try to find out
something about the different pictures.
I have got an advantage over most of the members here and that is that English
is not
[Ant]
Isn't the primary use of the MOQ to improve the Quality of your life? There's
just a certain limit that pondering from the Dynamic perspective of the World
of Buddhas is going to take you. It ain't going to fix yer bike!
[Arlo]
I think this is spot on, Ant. Holding static patterns in
Greetings,
On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:23 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha wrote to X-man and dmb:
Here's my definition of the self: the “self” is a flow of ever-changing,
conditionally co-dependent and impermanent static patterns value in the
infinite field of Dynamic Quality.
dmb
Many thanks for expanding on a couple of points there, Arlo. I think your post
here is a vignette of clarity of thought which is the type of post that makes
this Discussion group worth reading. Anyway, without Platt to give a good
kicking to, any more (metaphorically speaking of course; as
Subject: Re: [MD] self
Ant,
Ones experience of the sun is one that is ever-changing as the sun moves
position through the sky and as ones visual perspective and context changes.
Even moving ones head changes the experience. And I thought the MoQ was to
change the everyday understanding
it over the
Internet.
Very yummy!
Marsha
Best wishes,
Ant
From: val...@att.net
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:35:43 -0500
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] self
Ant,
Ones experience of the sun is one that is ever-changing as the sun moves
position through
X-man,
In such a way a unicorn exists too.
Marsha
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:09 AM, X xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
The tetralemma can be addressed in this way
We ask if the concept has meaning if it has value.
If it has value we can say it exists.
MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Marsha wrote to X-man and dmb:
Here's my definition of the self: the “self” is a flow of ever-changing,
conditionally co-dependent and impermanent static patterns value in the
infinite field of Dynamic Quality.
dmb says:
As I've pointed out many times, your definition of the self is
dmb,
On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:23 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha wrote to X-man and dmb:
Here's my definition of the self: the “self” is a flow of ever-changing,
conditionally co-dependent and impermanent static patterns value in the
infinite field of Dynamic Quality.
dmb
dmb,
On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:23 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha wrote to X-man and dmb:
Here's my definition of the self: the “self” is a flow of ever-changing,
conditionally co-dependent and impermanent static patterns value in the
infinite field of Dynamic Quality.
dmb
Marsha wrote to X-man (Ron) and Dave Buchanan, Feb 5th 2013:
Here's my definition of the self: the “self” is a flow of
ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent static
patterns value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality.
Dave Buchanan responded:
As I've pointed out many
Only if you're a rationalist. An empiricist can trace
Concepts to their agreement with experience. Ala Hume.
MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
X-man,
In such a way a unicorn exists too.
Marsha
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:09 AM, X xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
The tetralemma can be addressed in
X-man,
My definition of self agrees with my experience. How does your experience of
the self agree with the Ultimate?
Marsha
On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:39 PM, X xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Only if you're a rationalist. An empiricist can trace
Concepts to their agreement with experience.
Ant,
Ones experience of the sun is one that is ever-changing as the sun moves
position through the sky and as ones visual perspective and context changes.
Even moving ones head changes the experience. And I thought the MoQ was to
change the everyday understanding from one of self and
Hello everyone
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Ant,
Ones experience of the sun is one that is ever-changing as the sun moves
position through the sky and as ones visual perspective and context changes.
Even moving ones head changes the experience. And I
Ant McWatt comments:
This reminds of the more esoteric material (Joseph Margolis? - I can't remember
off the top of my head) that Scott Roberts introduced seven-eight years ago.
You can just go on and on in these logical circles; spinning words like a
logical positivist on speed... Anyway,
Greetings,
A Buddhist perspective of self: No central unit, but a flow of mental states
which rise, produce function and disappear, which gives rise to the next mental
state producing a stream of mental states.
In Buddhism there is the term 'anatta', no-self:
One cannot say that the
Greetings X-man,
On Feb 2, 2013, at 11:51 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Ron had said:
The irony is that those who typically champion RMP as a relativist and
Pyrrhonist were also championing
critical thinking without seeing the difficulty of pairing those two ideas as
highly
Dear Marsha
Who do you look at in the mirror? Some One else?
I am talking to You.
Being someone can be a pleasure or a suffering inferno, it all depends on how
well we learn how to do it. By excellence or without balance.
MOQ is about things, living organisms, social group identities and
J-A,
Save the Robert DeNiro impersonation...
Metaphysics is the investigation into the nature of reality. The Metaphysics
of Quality has as its fundamental principle the idea that the world is nothing
but value.
Marsha
On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:20 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson
Sure Marsha
Being nothing but Value does not mean that it is worthless.
J A
3 feb 2013 kl. 10.29 skrev MarshaV:
J-A,
Save the Robert DeNiro impersonation...
Metaphysics is the investigation into the nature of reality. The Metaphysics
of Quality has as its fundamental principle
The tetralemma can be addressed in this way
We ask if the concept has meaning if it has value.
If it has value we can say it exists.
MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Jan 29, 2013, at 7:21 PM, MarshaV wrote:
But, X-man and dmb,
the definition in the previous post (below) represents a
I never said nor implied to accept everything I say
Unquestioned. That is an obvious rhetorical device designed
To negate and ignore anything I or anyone has to say about
Anything at all. Not to mention it is an incredibly biased
And closeminded position to take. Rather self serving.
Directly
That's right Jan. If it has value it exists.
It starts with your own hands and heart.
It starts with yourself.
.
Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote:
Sure Marsha
Being nothing but Value does not mean that it is worthless.
J A
3 feb 2013 kl. 10.29 skrev MarshaV:
J-A,
Marsha,
That McWatt guy knew what was he was talking about, didn't he?!
A little more seriously, I'm not a great fan of throwing quotes around (all
old tea which is relatively static to hearing people's own new,
Dynamic thoughts) but I'll add this pragmatic thought about the
self from Di
Hi Ant,
I'm quite new to tea, and find there are many types, flavors and timings
involved. I can even make a drama out of choosing a teapot. At the moment my
favorite tea is called Golden Monkey and is a black tea steeped in ancient lore
and imperial exclusivity which originated with the
On 2/3/13 7:27 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
³The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a ³self² that is
independent of inorganic, biological, social or intellectual patterns. There
is no ³self² that contains these patterns. These patterns contain the self.
This denial
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] self
Horse had said:
Wouldn't it be better to define self, as distinct from other, from within
different frameworks?
In a subject/object framework you have definitions based upon either a
subjective or objective point of view
Ron had said:
The irony is that those who typically champion RMP as a relativist and
Pyrrhonist were also championing
critical thinking without seeing the difficulty of pairing those two ideas as
highly incompatable with the
act of critical thinking.
Ron clarifies:
I believe those that take
Lila is composed of static patterns of value and these patterns are evolving
toward a Dynamic Quality. ...She's on her way somewhere like everybody else.
And you can't say where that somewhere is. ...'All life is a migration of
static patterns of quality toward Dynamic Quality. (Lila 139)
On Jan 29, 2013, at 7:21 PM, MarshaV wrote:
But, X-man and dmb,
the definition in the previous post (below) represents a static interpretation,
Ultimately:
One cannot say that the self exists.
One cannot say that the self does not exist.
One cannot say that self both exists and does not
Greetings Jan Anders,
I think you chose to answer due to an infinite number of interdependent events.
I can know bits and pieces of patterns that flow through consciousness by
watching (mindful-awareness). I cannot watch the watcher; I've tried, but
never succeeded. It seems to be a
If you cant whatch yourself in your mindmirror of selfconsciousness maybe you
could make this experiment:
Put a photo or a painting of your face beside a mirror.
While looking at the picture in the mirror and comparing it to the portrait I
think you can find some important differences
After a
J-A,
I don't know what 'time' means to you (Yes, I've read your book.), but perhaps
you might read a good translation of Nagarjuna's 'Mulamadhyamakakarika' to
contemplate the strangeness of our ideas of time and how impossible (empty)
those ideas are.
Thanks for your suggestion.
Marsha
Hi All
Wouldn't it be better to define self, as distinct from other, from
within different frameworks?
In a subject/object framework you have definitions based upon either a
subjective or objective point of view and from within a MoQ framework
you have static patterns emerging in response to
Sorry Marsha
I'd rather practice my self pragmatically on my accordion. Frank Zappa's
Waka/Yawaka sounds more fun to me than Yamukawaka.
Best wishes
Jan Anders
30 jan 2013 kl. 10:40 skrev MarshaV val...@att.net:
J-A,
I don't know what 'time' means to you (Yes, I've read your book.),
Exactly Horse
That's why I think it is so interesting with studying the picture in a mirror.
Another way is to use the camera on the computer to look at yourself. There
is an interesting delay factor added to that.
J A
30 jan 2013 kl. 10:58 skrev Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net:
Hi All
Hi Horse and All,
IMHO S/O are contradictory if accepted as existence. There is no
metaphysics of existence that would accept S/O duality. SO in the
consciousness of an individual is better understood as DQ/SQ where S is SQ
definable and O is DQ indefinable. Consciousness accepts DQ/SQ
J-A,
Don't be sorry. That's why, with family responsibilities behind me, I left my
job for the solitude of this island cottage: to meditate, to paint, to take
walks, and to read, study think on these things.
Marsha
On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:27 AM, Jan Anders Andersson
Don't like your analogy
Using my own
Didn't think you'd mind.
Guessin that if the self doesent exist
One can hardly be expected to reflect
.
MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Greetings X-man and dmb,
Here's my definition of the self: the “self” is a flow of ever-changing,
conditionally
But, X-man and dmb,
the definition in the previous post (below) represents a static interpretation,
Ultimately:
One cannot say that the self exists.
One cannot say that the self does not exist.
One cannot say that self both exists and does not exist.
One cannot say that the self neither
Ron,
I don't mind at all if you don't like my analogy. My analogy is based on my
investigation/experience/interpretation. I care very much that _you care_
about these things enough to have your own analogy. Maybe mindful-awareness is
like your reflect; I don't know.
Marsha
On Jan
Dear Marsha
I know who I am, that I am, because I am the one that chooses to answer.
Cogito ergo sum
JanAnders
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
Greetings X-man and dmb,
Here's my definition of the self: the “self” is a flow of ever-changing,
conditionally co-dependent and impermanent static patterns value in the
infinite field of Dynamic Quality.
Marsha
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
The “self” is a flow (sometimes a sputtering) of ever-changing, conditionally
co-dependent and impermanent static patterns: inorganic patterns, biological
patterns, social patterns and intellectual patterns of value flowing in the
infinite field of Dynamic Quality.
What is there to attack
Hi Marsha,
Thank you for your invitation. I will use what you present below as a
starting point for a discussion towards conciliation.
What do you mean by the division symbol (forward slash) below? Could
you replace that symbol with a word or phrase? Are Reality and Value
two words that mean
Hello Mark,
I suppose you will have to go on without me, for I find no-thing to talk about.
But I am most interested where you have found an autonomous self.
Marsha
On Oct 10, 2011, at 7:26 PM, 118 wrote:
Mark:
What do you mean you cannot find it. What are you looking for, and
Hi Marsha,
Who is the I who has not found an autonomous self, as you claim. Is a
contingent self claiming it knows what an autonomous self is? Does a painter
know how to look for a neutrino? The fact that you are looking in good faith
may imply imply that you know what an autonomous self
Hi Mark,
I suppose you are a Pragmatist and think that an autonomous self is useful,
and therefore true.But here are some MoQ statements to help you understand
the MoQ:
-
Annotation 29: “The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a “self”
that is independent
Miri Albahari:
A Buddhist friend remarked recently: Perhaps one to two _arahants_ exist
in the world'. 'Arahant' (or _arhat_) is a Buddhist term for someone who has
attained the _summum bonum_ of Buddhist practice. Such a state is known as
'enlightenment' or _nirvana_. While Buddhist
Hi Marsha,
Thanks for the analogies. An independent self without it's
attachments (physical etc) is hard to fathom, and does not necessarily
provide any more insight to those who believe in a contingent self.
The passages provide a western interpretation of one of Buddha's
techniques for freeing
On Oct 10, 2011, at 12:28 PM, 118 wrote:
Now, it is your turn to present your assumptions that go into your
belief that the autonomous self does not exist. Then we can discuss
our assumptions and come to agreement.
Cheers,
Mark
H Mark,
I am being precise, concise, articulate and
Marsha,
What do you mean you cannot find it. What are you looking for, and
what will establish that you do find it? You are acting like you have
a megaphone and are trying to rabble rouse. Use some of your
intellect and let me know what assumptions you make towards finding
it. Can't we have a
Hey, Mark --
First of all, thank you Ham, you are more eloquent than I.
I appreciate the compliment, Mark. But if I am more eloquent, why do the
ideas you articulate get more response than mine? (On second thought, don't
bother; it's because that devil Ham is misconstruing the MoQ to
Greetings Ham,
Here's the crux of the matter for me. There is the concept of an 'autonomous
self'
and the experience of a 'subjective perspective'. I have never found any
autonomous self, but I do seem to experience a subjective perspective. Since I
have not found an 'autonomous self'
Greetings Mark,
Last July you wrote:
I propose that there is a method in writing which is based on
Dynamic Quality. In fact there are many methods being used
today with such a basis. Train of thought, or automatic writing
is one of those. Often I have to read my
While I am thinking about it there is a very good book on Buddhism recently
out called 'Buddhism, Plain and Simple', by Steve Hagen and published by Tuttle
Publishing. I recommend you get it because it shows the similarities, between
the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more clearly than any other I have
Hi Mark,
My metaphysical view is Reality = Value(unpatterned experience/patterned
experience). If you want to debate my perspective, that is the point-of-view
to debate. If you want to debate a particular pattern, try spell it out
clearly and I will try to take it seriously.
Marsha
Hi Ham,
I am not sure of my getting responses. I have tried to stay out of the
philosophology (or whatever) sections, and tried to stick with moving forward.
This forum tends to relay through dictums which I have tried to harness for my
own propaganda.
My intention in the last post was
Hi Marsha,
I suppose you are speaking theoretically. From your posts it is clear that you
believe that an autonomous self exists. Trust your intuition above your logic,
it is much more real.
Mark
On Oct 9, 2011, at 12:10 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Greetings Ham,
Here's the
Hi Marsha,
I have got used to this defensive form of reply. Usually you are seeking
interaction through confrontation. There is so much interaction around you
this very moment, that the emotional gratification through the intellect is
secondary.
Certainly my posting provides gratification
Hi Mark --
My intention in the last post was towards harmonization of concepts.
The analogies may be weak at present, but they are just doorways.
Often I find the term dynamic to be misleading since it gives the
sense of promulgating change. However, as a foil to static it works
to a
Greetings Mark,
You are mistaken... I have never found an autonomous self, and since I have
not found an 'autonomous self' to exist, I find no reason to accept an
autonomous self or reject it.
Marsha
On Oct 9, 2011, at 1:55 PM, 118 wrote:
Hi Marsha,
I suppose you are speaking
Hello Mark,
This is all expresses your opinion which is yours to keep, or change with your
claim to being dynamic. If find nothing in your post 3-pager but ramblings.
As I stated in a later post: My metaphysical view is Reality =
Value(unpatterned experience/patterned experience). If you
Hi Marsha,
This is not a question of existence, it is about belief. Existence as
presented is a static concept. Belief is much deeper than that.
Of course it is appropriate to bring in static concepts such as physics (I do
it all the time) as a raft to cross the river. Once across, the raft
On Oct 8, 2011, at 1:35 PM, 118 wrote:
Hi Marsha,
This is not a question of existence, it is about belief. Existence as
presented is a static concept. Belief is much deeper than that.
No, it is not a question, it is a tetralemma. There is Value(Dynamic/static).
I have no idea how you
Hi Ham, Marsha,
First of all, thank you Ham, you are more eloquent than I.
Belief, which some call faith, lies in all those things that we do not
try to divide up into static concepts and then question. Most of our
daily lives consist of such faith. Only a very little becomes that
voice in our
Greetings Mark,
Indeed, why would one deny existence to what has never been found to exist in
the first place? And so, one cannot say that the self exists; one cannot say
that the self does not exist; one cannot say that self both exists and does
not exist; one cannot say that the self
On Oct 6, 2011, at 6:24 PM, 118 wrote:
Mark:
Gautama was a philosopher in the same vein as Socrates. He used dialectics
to bring about understanding.
Marsha:
Steve Hagen, author of 'Buddhism Plain and Simple ', a book recommended by RMP,
writes “When the Buddha was asked to sum up his
Greetings,
For others who might be interested in consciousness and are no-self absorbed, I
just started reading another book on the subject and would recommend it as
excellent:
'Self, No Self?: Perspectives from Analytical, Phenomenological, and Indian
Traditions', edited by Mark
Hi Marsha,
Gautama was a philosopher in the same vein as Socrates. He used dialectics to
bring about understanding. Any writings of his philosophy were written after
he was dead, sometimes a long time. The same can be said for Jesus and
Solomon. Buddha had a disregard for writing since he
Hi Mark,
Hopefully describing levels in evolution as levels in existence echoes Step
evolution. As a metaphysical term I prefer to see evolution as levels in
existence. How many?, is there a difference in how far apart are the
intervals? echo the tonic scale in music.
Joe
On 8/30/11 10:06 PM,
Hi Steven,
Thanks for the suggestion. I would be interested in learning more about
applications of math to MoQ. What are your thoughts on using infinite set
theory?
Mark
On Aug 28, 2011, at 7:59 PM, Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Mark,
Please don't talk about
I am not sure if undefined is the right word, since undefined things can exist.
What are your thoughts on this Steve?
Mark
On Aug 28, 2011, at 8:06 PM, Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
To say that 6/2=3 is to say that 3*2=6. In general to say that a/b=c
means that
Hi Joe,
The easiest way to understand this is to put the equation to words as I did for
2/0. Two times zero can be read as What do you have if you double nothing?
Math is a language. It has a shorthand notation for reasons of manipulation.
Due to this simplification, it has a much more
Hi Mark,
Math cannot logically describe evolution, something new existing differently
from something old. I suggest the logic in MOQ is an indefinable logic of
levels in existence beyond a logic for physical existence since it requires
a metaphysical DQ/SQ logic. Math has limitations in logic
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the post. We can describe two forms of evolution for the purposes
of this discussion. The first would be gradual as presented by sq
differentiation. The second is jump or quantum evolution. In biological
parlance this is when enough mutations have accrued that a final
Hi Mark and all,
S/O. For many years Reality, (Existence ?) was seen as Subjective or
Objective, 2 levels in existence, described in S/O Metaphysics as
Subject/Object reality.
IMHO Pirsig envisioned DQ undefined/SQ defined modalities for reality for
evolution. The number of levels in evolution
Hi Joe,
Interesting, but I do not understand it.
I do not make such a profound thing of undefinable. For every definable thing
there are 100 or more undefinable. Beauty is undefinable. Things that can be
defined are derived through language. Any definition leaves most of the thing
out.
Hi Steve!
Thanks Steve!
Joe
On 8/28/11 8:06 PM, Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
To say that 6/2=3 is to say that 3*2=6. In general to say that a/b=c
means that b*c=a.Therefore, to say that 2/0=c (for some c) would mean
that 0*c=2. But 0 times anything would be
Hi Arlo
On 17/08/2011 15:30, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
[Horse]
And if this 'autonomous individual self ' is illusory then the
conventional way of looking at free will is also illusory.
[Arlo]
The way I see it, free will is intellectual pattern we use in an
attempt to describe experience. Like
[Arlo]
Going to respond bottom-up, to begin with agreement.
[Horse]
Yes, if what I think you're saying is what you are saying!! ... So if by agency
you mean that we are better able to respond to choice and that there is a
greater variety of choice/agency among (f.ex.) intellectual patterns than
Joe, Joe, Joe,
How is your math these days? When an error is returned for an
equation like 2/0, it means Return to sender, or Earth to Joe, or
What are you asking?. 2/0 asks how many times does nothing fit
into two?. So tell me Joe, how many times can you fit nothing into
two if you are so
Hi Mark,
How can you add, subract, multiply 1 by 0, and not divide 1 by 0? A
failure in rigorous logic?
Joe
On 8/28/11 5:36 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
Joe, Joe, Joe,
How is your math these days? When an error is returned for an
equation like 2/0, it means Return to sender,
Dear Mark,
Please don't talk about things you know nothing about. I am a
mathematician and statistician. Last time I checked you are not. I am
only looking out for you best interest to help you avoid looking
stupid just as you were simply trying to help Horse by telling him he
can't talk about
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
