[MD] confused

[Ron Kulp]

Thanks SA ,
You got what I was saying, the Mind is difficult to define it is
mysterious..dropping it because of this seems like a cop out. I
questioned his choice of words when he seemed to belittle Marsha's view.
I do not percieve the MOQ as trying to be mysterious or "cryptic"
I see the (MD) as wrought with logic traps. Where some  seem to get
caught up in a "pissing match" rather than address the point. That's
all.
-RK   

(HAM)
I avoid Mind altogether, as it suggests an extra-corporeal or collective
realm of intelligence (which I reject), and because it is too often
confused with the brain [hence the asterisk in the Thesaurus listing]
and the general thought process.  Mind is simply too ambiguous a term to
be meaningful in epistemological discussions, as can be seen from
Marsha's cryptic
definition: "a constellation of patterns of quality."

I hope this resolves some of the confusion.

Regards,
Ham

 

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Heather Perella
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:27 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] confused



> The mind is
> cryptic as you were unable to acuratley define it.
> Is'nt that what you people are about or am I missing it?

     Being cryptic?  It's not about trying to be mysterious, if this is
what your getting at.  Ham would want definitions layed out and
everybody to except this definition or that definition, and that's all
fine.  The problem with this approach by Ham is that culture's
throughout the earth have applied definitions, and yet he thinks he has
the best definition.  Everybody might think that way one time or
another.  If we had enough people to share and agree with certain
definitions, as Ham wants us to with his, then we would have another
culture.  This is not a new concept.  People have been doing this for
ages.  What's new is Ham thinks he has the best new definitions and this
new culture called Ham's culture isn't satisfying enough.  To get back
to the original point, being cryptic seems to be an element of reality.
This cryptic element is, I believe, due to the aspects of reality that
are not human.  This reality has an overall oneness, but yet, for me to
define what that overall oneness is, would be in vain.
 I am a human being.  The wind converses with me. 
Yet, I am not the wind or a beaver, and so I respect them.  This
conversation the world is amidst has static patterns, and dynamic ones.
It is all quality.
 Even the mind is quality.  So static and dynamic quality play out
everywhere.  This might assume that I'm prompting a MoQ culture, as
opposed to a Ham culture, but really I'm not pushing any specific
culture, due to the dynamism of reality, but that may seem static.

SA 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing
etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/