[MD] Another parallel

Sat Jul 18 06:21:36 PDT 2009

Ron,

Certainly they are experiences in the now, but I don't think of them as
intellectual abstract symbol manipulation.  I think I mentioned once before
I thought what you are describing more as a use of 'intelligence', or an
applying the best of all appropriate patterns from all four levels into an
experience. That is why the shaman is highly intelligent, naturally
intelligent, and I am sure more intelligent than most intellectuals.  An
intellectual may have this type of intelligence, or not.  

But these are just thoughts, they may work for you, or not.  

Marsha     

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 8:34 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

I believe natural language to be similar. people talking, body movement,
style,
meter tone inflection dynamic presence some times smell sound of their voice
their being in the now of experience. dynamic intellectual expression not
the written
word.

________________________________
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 8:25:09 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

Ron,
I would consider them patterns that could be expressed.  

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 8:21 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

>Marsha: 
Once the MoQ is experienced as a symphony, the score becomes only an
> intellectual pattern.  Been thinking about this all day long.

Ron:
Would you consider those intellectual patterns as a form of intellectual
expression

________________________________
From: Joseph Maurer <jhmau at sbcglobal.net>
To: "moq_discuss at moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 6:16:14 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

On 7/17/09 1:43 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

Hi Marsha,

Thank You!  You are closer to an awareness of a creation in existence than I
am.  I was present at the moment of birth, but that was a presence at the
first breath, not the first moment of existence.  For that reason I accept
your judgments about existence.

For me  ³I am² defines the undefined ³I think² in the argument ³I think,
therefore I am.²  Imho there-fore is not causal.  I am a sentient defines
the undefined ³I think² which remains perceptual but not conceptual.  ³I
think² is undefined, there has to be an object: ³I think this² for it to be
conceptual.  ³I am² is only perceptual.  I can¹t define myself.

And, of course, I may have that whole thing backwards.

Is evolution a perception in existence? I can¹t define existence although I
perceive it.  I can¹t define evolution although I perceive an ordered
existence I call evolution.

I would guess that Werner is forhadowing perception and conception in
evolution.

Into the hot water from the gitgo.

Imho Joe

> Hi Joe, 
> 
> Indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.
> 
> Once the MoQ is experienced as a symphony, the score becomes only an
> intellectual pattern.  Been thinking about this all day long.
> 
> Not sure about Descartes' "I think therefore I am.", but I see myself more
> clearly when I stop thinking.
>  
> Because of the Uncertainty Principle, Werner Heisenberg is my hero.  You
are
> too, of course.  He said, " Every word or concept, clear as it may seem to
> be, has only a limited range of applicability."
> 
> 
> Marsha

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/