[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[118]

Hi A,

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Alexander Jarnroth <
alexander.jarnroth at comhem.se> wrote:

> Hello Mark
>
> I think, also, that by turning something into an "begreep" (it is obviously
> the same word) you place the thought in some kind of category, you make it
> an element or a set, which could be manipulated logically.
> A thought turned into, or mapped into, language becomes "possible to
> manipulate" in a sense which it wouldn't be otherwise: you absolve it, or
> crystalize it in an alchemical sense.
>
> I'm not really sure what "will" would be. Does will concern feelings or
> thoughts? Which comes first and which dominates? Or does no one dominate?
> I'm really not sure. And what about will within MoQ?
>
> /A
>
>
[Mark]
My interpretation of will is that it comes before thoughts.  I could say
that in the begining was will.  I usually call this intent or intention.
 This kind of removes it from notions such as "will power" and such.  What I
profess (standing on my soap box) is that everything contains intent.  When
we are first born, all we have is will.  The brain then becomes tamed and
such will is expressed in a differentiated way.  Such will or intent could
be described as a manifestation of dynamic quality, from the personal side.
 According to my understanding of it of course.

Just my opinion, but it does explain many things to me.  Thanks for the
questions.

Mark

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
>