[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[MarshaV]

On Dec 7, 2010, at 3:06 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:55 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:34 PM, 118 wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> Can you appreciate the sun on your face without thinking there is sun
>>> on your face?  I think you can.  You find it pleasing in an
>>> intellectual way without any subject object.
>> 
>> In a experiential way.  I don't need intellectual static patterns of value
>> to enjoy the sun on my face.
> 
> [Mark]
> OK, then we have a different appreciation for the intellectual level.
> I am fine with that.  What I am saying is that the intellect is not
> only static patterns of value, it is dynamic.  I think this is what I
> stated earlier, but I now restate it.  If your definition of intellect
> is the static pattern of value, then I see how you agree with Bo.  It
> is just another way of looking at it.

Marsha:
To me, the fourth level is comprised of intellectual static patterns 
of value.  And of course static pattern events always include a 
dynamic aspect.   


>>> If you want to place
>>> this in another level, then you are not using your brain for such a
>>> thing which seems hard to imagine (literally of course, you are always
>>> using your brain in these posts).
>> 
>> What?  Are you one of those who reduces all conceptual experiences
>> to brain activity?
> 
> [Mark]
> No, but the reflective appreciation would seem to be.  It would seem
> that concepts are a brain thing, but maybe not.  I suppose the foot
> can have concepts too, and so can a planet.  I was trying to stick
> within a more defined framework.

I do not believe there is any proof that consciousness is solely in the 
head; while there does seem to be a correlation between consciousness 
and brain function.  Statically/conventionally speaking, that is.   I don't 
really know.   


Marsha  

 
___