[MD] confused

[MarshaV]

At 06:47 AM 10/24/2006, you wrote:
>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
>
>_


SA,
         Is that so?

Marsha