[MD] Some historical perspective

[Marsha]

Mark,

Sorry I haven't been clear, and cannot expand on my explanation now.   
Bye for now.  Be back Tuesday or Wednesday.

Marsha




Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 18, 2009, at 1:23 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> Hi Marsha,
>
>
> Marsha:
> My definition is describing the functioning of the intellectual  
> patterns. The self is assumed to be performing the manipulation. Of  
> course it is a dualistic illusion. From the Quality point-of-view,  
> there is unpatterned experience and patterned experience, and all  
> static patterns of value are relational.
>
>
>
> squonk: Thanks for this additional data.
>
> IMO the moq does not assume there is a 'self' which manipulates  
> static patterns of intellectual quality.
>
> If static patterns of intellectual quality are isolated within their  
> own realm i think it may therefore be assumed to be DQ which  
> performs the manipulation of static patterns of intellectual quality.
>
> I may have got this all wrong.
>
>> 20Squonk:
>> This may beg the question: What delights in these relationships?
>>
>> And i think the moq would state that 'delight' is an emotional >  
>> response,
>> that is to say, it is biological in nature. It is therefore the, >  
>> 'Naked ape'
>> which delights in 'abstract concepts and symbols, and the rules >  
>> (grammar,
>> logic, mathematics) used for manipulating them'.
>
> Marsha:
> Why don't you tell me.
>
>
>
>
> squonk: If delight is an emotional response, and if emotions are  
> biological in nature, then a nervous system is required in order for  
> emotions to be experienced. Naked apes have nervous systems, 'E =  
> mc2' as 'abstract concepts and symbols, and the rules used for  
> manipulating th
> em' does not.
>
> The relationship between a delighting nervous system and E = mc2  
> bypasses social patterns (almost - another culture may replace these  
> symbols with other culturally inherited ones, but their  
> relationships would be the same: T " ~s¬ would have to have a one to 
>  one correlation with E = mc2)
>
> IMO this description is not dualistic.
>
> It does rely upon differentiation, of which dualism is a subset.
>
> I may be wrong.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> squonk
>
>