[MD] e: Reading & Comprehension

[John Carl]

Of course statements about nature are static, Marsha.  As is the word
"nature".  But isn't that a bit nonsensical to assert because our finger is
pointing, the moon is encapsulated?



On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 8:21 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
>