FORGIVE ME TO SHIFT MY RESPONSE TO MD BUT I HAVE THE NASTY EXPERIENCE TO GET
>BOUNCED ON LS [BEING OFF TOPIC] AND I THINK THIS WHOLE THREAD IS ENTIRELY
>OFF TOPIC IT HAS A FAINT HINT TO ARISTO BUT THAT'S ALL.
>To All,
>It is not true [scientifically proven] that only human have language. Bees
>have, dogs have [not barking], ants have. These are languages we know of,
>there most be others that we don't have a clue about.
>Being a solitary language compatible organism was and still is an excuse
for
>humans to exploit nature [the other that is]. In the past it was an excuse
>to exploit other cultures too, this tendency is not new.
>On the other hand RMP opens a new horizon by introducing the term "complex
>creature" into our intellectual SPQ [static pattern of quality] layer.
>This means among other things that an idea we uttered through language is
>our as the charge passing through nerve endings allowing speech is of the
>particular nerves involved.
>If one leans back and let the idea sink for awhile, one cannot avoid the
>connection felt between the question of "who's idea was it" and the habit
of
>looking for a subject or object to own a quality, known in SOM.
>In Intellectual level, the agents are social entities, that create complex
>creatures of a new order. So the notion of I utter a word is not of the
>intellectual level at all [but of the social level].
>The correct way to look at it would be to see the idea as basic
intellectual
>utterance, in connection to [inside the boundaries of a] theory. And this
>only by an educated [in this particular theory] agent. In any case the
>experience is of quality even there, felt by the group who does it
>[hopefully now felt by you all, as you read this]. The understanding of
this
>idea utterance is a breaking down into SPQ. But the main think is the
>ideaflow which is prior to ownership according to MoQ.
>Another point Denis is right, but it got lost somehow [not enough stressed]
>is the crumbling of the subject [of SOM] into many PoV [point of view].
This
>has to do with the idea that we have many SPQ to act from and in relation
>to, and we act inside them as a matter of habit. My favorite example for it
>is to this question: "Why did you never try to fire your mother?"
>The answer is that this action [firing] and the term [Mother] never meet in
>a single SPQ.
>take time to digest
>AVID
>and don't forget to be gentle
>Avid
>icq 6598359
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:11 BST