[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Marsha,
real quick
Tim

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:57:56 -0500, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> said:
> 
> On Dec 10, 2010, at 8:08 AM, rapsncows at fastmail.fm wrote:
> 
> > [Tim]
> > so, it seems we can get to: "The critical point, however, is that
> > conscious awareness (sensibility) and the intellect by which it
> > functions are proprietary to the individual self" without (recognizing)
> > a '..."uniform, unchanging, and limitless" Source' called 'essence'.  I
> > wonder if you could convince Marsha to incorporate 'proprietary' into
> > her definition of self?  I think so: '...interdependent, proprietary,
> > impermanent..."
> 
> 
> 
> Marsha:
> There seems to be a stream of interconnected bit and pieces of pattern, 
> but no underlying entity that represents a proprietor.  
> 
> 
>

[Tim]
well, I don't know if we *need* to bring in 'entity' or the noun form
'proprietor'.  Can 'proprietary' be brought in to your definition if it
functions to denote an impossibility of having two 'collections' (as you
have defined it - off the top of my head: 'ever-changing,
interdependent, impermanent, collections of inorganic, biological,
social, intellectual, static patterns of value') break the bound that
keeps them 'interdependent' in order to become same, identical?  Or,
perhaps we could say that the collection is *unique* to you: would this
work?  If so, I think we have found an essential common ground with Ham.

Tim

P.S. I went back and looked at the email that got me all bothered when
you didn't respond.  I didn't see much Quality there.  I'm not sure what
I was thinking.  I know that I thought your response would give me a
real clue into your position, and I really was anticipating a response. 
But, anyway, I'm sorry for what now appears to be an over-reaction on my
part.
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class