[MD] e: Reading & Comprehension

[MarshaV]

Carl,

I'm fine with nature.  I'm fine with RMP's statements, but consider 
this, those were patterned (conventional)  statement.   


Marsha  

 
 
 
 

On May 16, 2010, at 11:09 AM, John Carl wrote:

> Marsha,
> 
> Please consider the following dialogue carefully and reconsider the
> formulation you posted.  Is Quality Static?
> 
> Copleston:
> 
> Is man merely a child of Nature?
> 
> Pirsig:
> 
> Yes. Quality is nature.
> 
> Copleston:
> 
> Or is there in him a spiritual principle which makes knowledge possible,
> whether it be knowledge of Nature or moral knowledge?�
> 
> Pirsig:
> 
> The MOQ says there is no spiritual principle in man that makes knowledge
> possible. Nature does the whole job.
> 
> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 7:57 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hello John,
>> 
>> I think that nature is one of the most dynamic static patterns,
>> but it's still pattern applied to DQ.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 16, 2010, at 10:04 AM, John Carl wrote:
>> 
>>> Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.
>>> 
>>> Nature is a static pattern?  Then you believe everything is.  I can't
>>> imagine anything more dynamic than  nature.
>>> 
>>> At least the nature we have here in California, but I'm quite sure its
>> the
>>> same everywhere.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:25 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Just this morning I was thinking about my earlier discussion with Horse
>> and
>>> Arlo on the dividing line between intellect and intelligence, and how
>> that
>>> fits with know-how vs. know-that and it sems very clear to me this
>> morning
>>> that know-how is intelligence and know-that is intellect.
>>> 
>>> An amoeba knows how to avoid a puddle of acid, but it doesn't know that
>> it's
>>> avoiding a puddle of acid.  Know-how is biological and know-that is
>> human.
>>> 
>>> Doesn't it all just sort of dovetail together nicely?  I feel like I'm
>>> getting a really solid metaphysical understanding (know-that) here.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Compared to normal people, probably.  Compared to me and others on MD,
>> no.
>>> 
>>> Chopping Wood?  Today is the day for gardening.  Nature beckons!
>>> 
>>> take care,
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ___
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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/md/archives.html
>>>> 
>>> 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/md/archives.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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/md/archives.html
>> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___