[MD] e: Reading & Comprehension

[MarshaV]

Hi Ian,

I'm not sure how I responded to is "NATURE is intellect", but 'nature' is 
a static pattern of value, not an absolute.  No matter how forceful he 
states it, I'm not going to take anything as a given until I consider it 
fully.  I was discussing a level of patterns, and I had the feeling he was 
discussing 'thinking'.  There is something in the way he uses the 
word 'intellect' that makes me think it's about thinking in general.

One can look at all patterns as 'conceptions', or one can look at 
what patterns represent, their category or function.  I can all too 
easily toss it all off to conceptual vapor, and go chop wood.  But I'm
curious to thoroughly understand how it works.  If I can.  It is not
unimportant to the way lives are lived.    

Am I weird?  







On May 16, 2010, at 1:02 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:

> Arlo, Marsha,
> 
> Marsha, is your problem reacting to Arlo saying this is how it is -
> the insulting schoolmasterly impression - because you are missing that
> his sentences start with IF ?
> 
> Just logical consequences of the statements of others.
> 
> Ian
> 
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
>> [Marsha]
>> The
>> lament
>> is
>> based
>> on
>> a
>> misconception:
>> that
>> entities (self & object)
>> exist
>> independently.
>> 
>> [Arlo]
>> Which is... TAADAA!.. SOM! If ALL intellectual patterns are SOM, this is NOT
>> a misconception, it is the NATURE of intellect.



 
___