All (or those of you that have read and understand LILA)
For the understanding of the pattern of 4 levels and how they differ I found an
interesting article. This is about step one, the step between level one and
two, the inorganic, into the organic.
Interesting, I was thinking about two related things the other day - what
someone called 'vibrational tuning' theory, and energy gaining
when you add this dissipation-driven adaptive organization theory of
England's ..
entropy = movement to dissipation can be seen as increase in complexity
Dave,
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:39 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Dan said:
I don't know, Dave. I think there are observations being made that non-DNA
based lifeforms are possible: Synthetic biologists have discovered that six
other molecules can could store genetic information and
Thanks Horse,
I wasn't being contentious - the universe is big (in time and space)
so no reason to exclude any forms of life beyond our myopic ken, in a
truly metaphysical view - Not just organic in the well known
carbon-based / DNA-based sense , but organic as in like a (living)
organism.
Dan said:
I don't know, Dave. I think there are observations being made that non-DNA
based lifeforms are possible: Synthetic biologists have discovered that six
other molecules can could store genetic information and pass it on. A host of
alternative nucleic acids have been made in labs over
Horse said to dmb:
I agree with much of what you say but it's still very important to remember
that DNA-based life is no more than one possible way for life to exist and that
it involves an environment and a context. Not having experienced something (or
maybe mis-interpreting something that we
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:28 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Horse said to dmb:
I agree with much of what you say but it's still very important to remember
that DNA-based life is no more than one possible way for life to exist and
that it involves an environment and a context. Not
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 9, 2014, at 1:28 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Horse said to dmb:
I agree with much of what you say but it's still very important to remember
that DNA-based life is no more than one possible way for life to exist and
that it involves an
Hi Gents, (any Ladies?)
In our work to refine the metaphysics of Quality I think we must use the
element of time here. Actually, we are talking about step two, as step one
should be the first step from where there where no Organic patterns at all,
before the first change, into the moment after
Jan Anders, quote
A tree for example is using the magnetism between water molecules to pump
it up into the top of the tree.
rootpressure
osmotic
Hi Dave
I agree with much of what you say but it's still very important to
remember that DNA-based life is no more than one possible way for life
to exist and that it involves an environment and a context. Not having
experienced something (or maybe mis-interpreting something that we do
Hi Dave
At the risk of misinterpreting what Ian's saying, I think what he means
is that, as a generalisation, 'life' is the next step up from 'matter'!
What we know as life is based around the double helix and involves DNA,
genes, proteins etc. but this is only one possible way that life may
Horse said to dmb:
At the risk of misinterpreting what Ian's saying, I think what he means is
that, as a generalisation, 'life' is the next step up from 'matter'! What we
know as life is based around the double helix and involves DNA, genes,
proteins etc. but this is only one possible way
Andre
1 feb 2014 kl. 08:45 skrev Andre andrebroer...@gmail.com:
J-A:
How can we describe the difference between moral 1, the inorganic, and moral
2 the organic?
Andre:
My guess is that the inorganic level is 'informed' by the morals of the laws
of (quantum)physics,
My guess is
Ian:
The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily
organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the
most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history.
Andre:
Can you enlighten us with your knowledge of life that is not
'necessarily organic life'
J-A:
Yes, we all know that, but what is the difference? What was it that triggered this shift?
DQ of course, but how did it happen? The basic cause for step one?
Andre:
Life is heading away from patterns, from whatever laws we may invent to explain
them. As Lennon sang; 'Life is what happens
Ian said:
The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily organic
life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the most-obvious form
in the circumstances of human history.
Andre replied:
Can you enlighten us with your knowledge of life that is not 'necessarily
JA
By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how
to define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two,
the organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives.
It's a huge difference - the difference between life and death, eh?
dmb,
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:50 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
I see we're on the same schedule since you posted this 7 mins ago. And
btw, we agree on somethings because tomorrow my whole mantra will be go
broncos. fuck seattle.
Ian said:
The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is
Nice work Andre. Selfperpetuating sounds as an elementary difference.
Where does these annotations comw from?
30 jan 2014 kl. 18:16 skrev Andre andrebroer...@gmail.com:
Jan-Anders:
By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how
to define the difference
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail ?
Or (for dmb), can you tell the green slime from your feet of clay ?
The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily
organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the
most-obvious form in the circumstances of
Well Ian, Lila is an inquiry about morals. Please notice the last letter s.
That means that RMP was pointing at more than one moral level.
So what are the moral like at level 1 and at level 2?
Just curious but still serious
Jan-Anders
31 jan 2014 kl. 14:23 skrev Ian Glendinning
Jan Anders Huh?
Obviously I know. Andre's question was about the first step, between 1 and 2
Ian
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Jan-Anders Andersson
janander...@telia.com wrote:
Well Ian, Lila is an inquiry about morals. Please notice the last letter s.
That means that RMP was pointing at
Yes, what, exactly, is, the difference between level 1 and level 2. Step one if
you think entering the organic level is the first. Some might argue that this
would be step two as it takes one step to get on the bus.
How can we describe the difference between moral 1, the inorganic, and moral 2
J-A:
How can we describe the difference between moral 1, the inorganic, and moral 2
the organic?
Andre:
My guess is that the inorganic level is 'informed' by the morals of the laws of
(quantum)physics,
My guess is that the organic level is 'informed' by the morals of the laws of
nature.
Jan-Anders:
By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how to
define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two, the
organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives.
Andre:
'Everything that has not been created by life (defined as
dmb says:
As I understand it, the distinction between organic and inorganic is something
everyone already understands. It's not something Pirsig invented. It's just the
difference between Adam and the clay from which he was formed. It's the
difference between rocks and trees, between ants and
We all her know that it is a difference, Adam and the clay is way of a romantic
expression of the difference but how should a classical person describe it?
A precise definition of the difference might be useful when we are talking to a
complete novice for example.
Inorganic patterns have a
By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how to
define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two, the
organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives.
Jan-Anders
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
dmb,
Step one is understanding the way intellectual static patterns of value
function. This was demonstrated best by the reifying of the illusionary
fiercest rivals. It is such a conceptual habit it cannot even be properly
recognized. And of course there is that arrogant but imaginary
Oh, but maybe the reification of fiercest rivals was more a social pattern
based on strong ambition, passion or arrogance.
On Oct 26, 2010, at 4:44 AM, MarshaV wrote:
dmb,
Step one is understanding the way intellectual static patterns of value
function. This was demonstrated
Greetings,
I am not saying that the Intellectual Level is populated by subjects and
objects; it is populated with patterns of value. I am describing the way
intellectual static patterns of value FUNCTION.
Marsha
On Oct 24, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
Platt to Mark:
In the Metaphysics of Quality, the source of concepts such as SOM is
Dynamic Quality. DQ is the source of all things.
Andre:
I stand corrected here Platt but this does not seem quite right. Yes, as
Phaedrus puts it in ZMM
'The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and the
Andre,
Your reference is, of course, to ZMM which doesn't not present
a metaphysics, static patterns of value, Intellectual or otherwise,
or a hierarchical, evolutionary structure.
Marsha
On Oct 25, 2010, at 3:35 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:
Platt to Mark:
In the Metaphysics of
Mark to Andre:
I am sorry you feel that way. I am more than happy to leave politics out of
this.
Andre:
And I am glad you didn't take my suggestion too seriously. I do not want to see
anyone off this discuss who expresses a genuine interest in the MOQ as a whole.
Mark:
Now Andre, if you
On 25 Oct 2010 at 9:35, Andre Broersen wrote:
Platt to Mark:
In the Metaphysics of Quality, the source of concepts such as SOM is
Dynamic Quality. DQ is the source of all things.
Andre:
I stand corrected here Platt but this does not seem quite right. Yes, as
Phaedrus puts it in ZMM
'The
Platt (and Marsha) to Andre:
You may be right, of course, but as I see it there was no metaphysics of
subject and objects before Pirsig identified it as such. Further, SOM is a fall
out of DQ, like all value patterns are. Finally, Pirsig's identification and
observations about the nature of SOM
Thanks Andre,
That makes sense, I'll have to chew on it.
Mark
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.comwrote:
Mark to Andre:
I am sorry you feel that way. I am more than happy to leave politics out
of
this.
Andre:
And I am glad you didn't take my suggestion
The way i'm reading his interventions, is that they are based on the
case-evidence, the material that is availiable
ie ; Turners reflections, Mc Watt's work, DMB'S abstractions, Dan's
interpretations,all the surrounding material like
interviews, William James his work and the use of this as a tool
Mark asked Andre:
Where does SOM come from? I am not asking for a definition, I am asking for a
process. What are the causal events that bring about SOM?
Andre:
I have answered this, hopefully to your satisfaction, in my recent reply to
Platt. Phaedrus is much better at a proper formulation
Dan, Dave,
An excellent explanation,
It should be placed within the site somehow
of moQ.org
as a contextual touchstone for discussions.
a treat to read.
Thanks
-Ron
Hello everyone
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:32 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Mark asked Andre:
Yes I do Marsha - I also post as the Moderator/Administrator of MD
Apart from that though, I only post as Horse.
Posting as another identity is not generally a problem as long as there
is no devious or deceitful intent. However, if I find that someone is
posting to get around a ban or to
Hello everyone
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle that I
have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know what SOM is by definition.
When is it that something enters into the SOM
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle that
I
have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know
Mark
As Dan says, you haven't, apparently, been around long enough yet to
grasp what's going on here and his suggestion that you consult the
archives, Anthony's work etc. is very apt. What Dan has said is plain
good sense and is said without being rude unlike your reply.
Cheers
Horse
Mark to Dan:
Well, then, my only response is: Go back to your master, you effing
rottweiler! You want it your way, there's a nice big bowl of dog food
waiting for you under the table, snarf it up, it will make you happy. Stop
your pathetic snarling on these airwaves! Don't come back until
Moi?
This Cartesian 'Me,' this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our
eyeballs looking out through them in order to pass judgment on the affairs of
the world, is just completely ridiculous. This self-appointed little editor of
reality is just an impossible fiction that
Hi Andre,
I am sorry you feel that way. I am more than happy to leave politics out of
this. My posts have been in response to questions posed to me. I can
certainly not respond, and will do so.
I provided some questions to Dan concerning SOM. If you thought my response
was not appropriate
main
branches of Buddhism.[1]
- Original Message
From: david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Sat, October 23, 2010 1:35:36 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Step One
This threefold dependence is not intuitively obvious, for it is concealed by
the appearance
Hello everyone
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:54 AM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
Yes, the definition, always good to have in
Hi Dan,
Thanks. My apologies, I will take a few deep breaths before I respond in
the future. I will certainly do my best to get current. As something of a
newcomer, I will ask questions.
My questions to you in the post concerning your dismissal of Marsha, which
you responded to, were sincere.
Hello everyone
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:09 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
Thanks. My apologies, I will take a few deep breaths before I respond in
the future. I will certainly do my best to get current. As something of a
newcomer, I will ask questions.
My questions to you
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:09 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
In order for me to understand MOQ I believe an
understanding of the terms is necessary, some thought that goes into the
source of concepts such as SOM. Things arise for a reason. In my recent
response to A from Sweden, I
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:09 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
Thanks. My apologies, I will take a few deep breaths before I respond in
the future. I will certainly do my best to get
Hi Horse,
Thanks for the reminder, and I do consult the archives. I just sent a
professional response to Dan thanking him for the information. Perhaps you
could direct me to certain critical subject headings that you feel would
help me out. I will await your response.
Thanks again,
Mark
Hi Andre,
[Andre previously in an attack on Marsha, most expletives removed, but
caution!]:
Let me put it another way: the inorganic level is a station through which
the organic level is made possible ( yes, by all means use a railway
station). The organic level is a station through which the
On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:44 PM, 118 wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:42 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:27 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:03 PM, 118 wrote:
Marsha:
I never stated that the
On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, 118 wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote:
inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this,
not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that
Correct interrupted to be interpreted.
On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, 118 wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote:
inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this,
not that. Clearly I was
Mark to Andre:
Yes, Andre, this is a bottoms up approach. I am not sure I agree with it.
How is flux stable?
Andre:
Yes Mark, you did well to place loads of question marks to this post as, having
re-read, it is very poorly written.
Please just disregard it as I think that similar issues
Hi Mark,
Here is how I interpret, based on how they function, the Intellectual (SOM)
Level:
The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of
value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these
patterns function is as reified concepts
Yes, !
'Quality is not a thing. It is an event...Quality is the event at which
awareness of both subjects and objects is made possible.
Thx for rolling this one in, Andre, will make me feel better again, I had a
bad day.
Adrie.
2010/10/23 Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com
Mark to Andre:
Hi Andre,
Some comments below for discussion.
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.comwrote:
Mark to Andre:
Yes, Andre, this is a bottoms up approach. I am not sure I agree with it.
How is flux stable?
Andre:
Yes Mark, you did well to place loads of
Hi Marsha,
Thanks for your help in my search. I found the following web page on
decontexualization.
http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/decontext2.html
Let me know what you think.
Cheers,
Mark
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Mark,
Here is how I
On Oct 23, 2010, at 12:55 PM, 118 wrote:
Hi Marsha,
Thanks for your help in my search. I found the following web page on
decontexualization.
http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/decontext2.html
Let me know what you think.
Cheers,
Mark
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM, MarshaV
Hi Mark,
I didn't think much of of the web pages. For me decontextualize means
removing and isolating a process from it's interdependencies to make it
an object of analysis.
Marsha
On Oct 23, 2010, at 12:55 PM, 118 wrote:
Hi Marsha,
Thanks for your help in my search. I found
Marsha to Mark:
The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of
value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these
patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational
analysis and manipulation. Reification
.
Parrots squawk and
peoples think.
Echo's fate and
Narcissus' link.
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:55:34 -0700
From: ununocti...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Marsha,
Thanks for your help in my search. I found the following web page on
decontexualization
...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Marsha,
Thanks for your help in my search. I found the following web page on
decontexualization.
http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/decontext2.html
Let me know what you think.
Cheers,
Mark
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM, MarshaV
.
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:55:34 -0700
From: ununocti...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Marsha,
Thanks for your help in my search. I found the following web page on
decontexualization.
http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/decontext2.html
Marsha, I think you've had more than your two posts a day regarding
the SOL.
As a reminder to folks on this list, SOM as the Intellectual Level (SOL)
is restricted to a maximum of two posts per day per member.
Please bear this in mind.
Horse
On 23/10/2010 18:52, MarshaV wrote:
Greetings,
Greetings Horse,
I am not discussing the SOL, it my view of the Intellectual Level based on
reification. I don't believe Bo ever used the word reification.
Marsha
On Oct 23, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Horse wrote:
Marsha, I think you've had more than your two posts a day regarding the SOL.
However you word it Marsha, SOM as the Intellectual level is SOL.
Whether it's by the front or the back door.
Two posts a day. That's the limit, please observe it.
Horse
On 23/10/2010 19:00, MarshaV wrote:
Greetings Horse,
I am not discussing the SOL, it my view of the Intellectual Level
Mark to Andre:
Sorry if my command of grammar is not up to snuff. I wouldn't get into a
grammar debate if I were you. Yes, it did just come up, you brought it up.
I was discussing it, you do not have to discuss it if you care not to, I
understand. So, how is flux stable?
Andre:
Nothing
Marsha said:
... Reification decontextualizes. [and] For me decontextualize means removing
and isolating a process from it's interdependencies to make it an object of
analysis.
dmb says:
Your use of these terms is very confusing. In fact, it seems you don't really
understand what they mean
Sure Horse, as moderator it is you setting the rules.:-)
On Oct 23, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Horse wrote:
However you word it Marsha, SOM as the Intellectual level is SOL. Whether
it's by the front or the back door.
Two posts a day. That's the limit, please observe it.
Horse
On
dmb,
Yawn... Alan Wallace uses it. He understand. You, I don't expect to
understand.
Marsha
On Oct 23, 2010, at 2:38 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha said:
... Reification decontextualizes. [and] For me decontextualize means removing
and isolating a process from it's
woeha!, Andre this was a program brought to you by..
WOEHA!
Strange that Mark's Dutch apparently is still sharp enough for 'gebeurtenis'
als event,probably he is still having the look and feel in his fingers.
stunning quality in your postings , Andre,--quality-driven?
2010/10/23 Andre
Adrie to Andre:
woeha!, Andre this was a program brought to you by..
WOEHA!
Strange that Mark's Dutch apparently is still sharp enough for 'gebeurtenis'
als event,probably he is still having the look and feel in his fingers.
stunning quality in your postings , Andre,--quality-driven?
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.comwrote:
Mark to Andre:
Sorry if my command of grammar is not up to snuff. I wouldn't get into a
grammar debate if I were you. Yes, it did just come up, you brought it up.
I was discussing it, you do not have to
Hi Marsha,
OK, got it. Thanks.
The reason I ask into process is that as a scientist I am interested in
forming a concept based on transcription, translation, and assembly. As you
probably know, this is the genetic model, and, as above so below. That is,
DNA to RNA (transcription), RNA to
Hey Andrie,
Wish I could take credit, but had to ask my Dad.
Mark
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:54 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER parser...@gmail.comwrote:
woeha!, Andre this was a program brought to you by..
WOEHA!
Strange that Mark's Dutch apparently is still sharp enough for
'gebeurtenis'
als
Horse,
Do you ever post on the MD using a different name, an alias name?
Marsha
On Oct 23, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Horse wrote:
However you word it Marsha, SOM as the Intellectual level is SOL. Whether
it's by the front or the back door.
Two posts a day. That's the limit, please observe
Hello everyone
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see the
problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to miss, even
for you. And what I did was neither a
Hi David,
I like the post below, except the part where you question another's
understanding. (I do it all the time). What is the article you are quoting
from? I haven't followed this whole string.
I find the paradigm of the absence of inherent existence to be subtle. The
four noble truths
Hi Dan,
Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle that I
have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know what SOM is by definition.
When is it that something enters into the SOM realm? There seems to be a
lot of grey area which you are not describing. When are we
On Oct 24, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com
wrote:
You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see
the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to
On Oct 23, 2010, at 2:38 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha said:
... Reification decontextualizes. [and] For me decontextualize means removing
and isolating a process from it's interdependencies to make it an object of
analysis.
dmb says:
blah... blah... blah.
For you
On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:27 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:03 PM, 118 wrote:
Marsha:
I never stated that the MoQ could be described by neti-neti. I was
saying
to
Dan that all this talk it not Quality(Ultimate Truth).
On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote:
inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this,
not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can
not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss
it?
Marsha:
The point
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:42 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:27 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:03 PM, 118 wrote:
Marsha:
I never stated that the MoQ could be described by neti-neti. I
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote:
inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this,
not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality
can
not be described with words. OK,
On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:24 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:37 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:02 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:30 AM,
As i am reading your production , Jc, it comes in mind that it is clean and
crisp.
regardless of the content,-it looks straight.
I will come clean on some of your questions, even proposals,step by step.
so , maybe i will do a part now, i have to work in shifts,and some parts
later on.
(Adrie)
Marsha said to Dan:
In Anthony's PhD it states that science, theology, mathematics and philosophy
are intellectual quality patterns. So here's my understanding of the
Intellectual Level: ...Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object
conceptual framework creating false boundaries that
dmb,
My reasoning is my own based on reading the MoQ literature, Buddhist texts,
personal experience and insight through meditation. Your understanding of the
MoQ is too shallow, page deep in fact, and not normally worth my consideration.
You, too, are one of those who has a hissy-fit if
corrected
dmb,
My reasoning is based on my own reading of the MoQ literature, Buddhist texts,
personal experience and insight through meditation. Your understanding of the
MoQ is too shallow, page deep in fact, and not normally worth my consideration.
You, too, are one of those who has
[Dan previously]
I can agree with you that when all is said and done, 'not this, not that'
rules.
[Marsh in response]
It is none of these things, not this, not that..
[Mark carefully interrupting]
Hi Marsha,
I think you are being misleading by saying it is none of these things. In
my
Hi Mark,
On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:55 PM, 118 wrote:
[Dan previously]
I can agree with you that when all is said and done, 'not this, not that'
rules.
[Marsh in response]
It is none of these things, not this, not that..
[Mark carefully interrupting]
Hi Marsha,
I think you
dmb responding to Marsha and Dan:
If we accept Marsha's conclusion, then the MOQ is defined as the very stance it
rejects...
Andre:
Spot on dmb but remember that Marsha (and Platt, Bodvar and Mary) is absolutely
convinced that LILA is a SOM document and, ipso fact the MOQ a SOM 'variant' as
1 - 100 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
