[MD] confused

[Heather Perella]

Marsha and gav,

     [Marsha]
> The word 'MIND' was obviously not a good word, so
> I'll replace it for 
> the word 'thoughts'.  (I sensed from the beginning
> that the question 
> was going to wrap me in my own confusion.)  I do
> think the patterns 
> of value in the Social and Intellectual Levels are
> conceptual 
> (thoughts), some conscious, most subconscious and
> unconscious.

     Back in the beginning of this thread gav asked:
     gav - are static patterns conceptual?

     and you (Marsha) answered:
     Marsha - Putting aside the fact that the MOQ is a
conceptual theory, within the MOQ, both Social &
Intellectual Levels are described as 
conceptual static quality (MIND).

      And now I'm hoping gav comes back to this thread
since he was confused and works through the confusion,
that he had, with us.
     I don't see how social patterns are thoughts.  I
don't see how intellectual patterns are thoughts.  I
guess it depends on where the thoughts are beginning
in the first place, right?  Or, I guess you might be
saying that once we've formed thoughts, then we behave
these social patterns and have these certain
intellectual patterns.  I'm going back before to when
these thoughts first formed.  I'm going back to
pre-intellectual, thus, thoughts coming from reality. 
Reality is quality.  Reality is 'out-there' and
'in-here'.  When reality is conceptualized, isn't
reality being conceived from what we call
pre-intellectual?  This pre-intellectual is
'out-there' and 'in-here', right?  So, static patterns
are pre-intellectual and thus, have some dynamic
quality.  Can't separate the two - they're all
quality.  Thus, in origin these static patterns can't
really be thought yet.  Thoughts haven't been formed
yet on their reality, right?

Thanks,
SA 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com