From: Mari (mld2001@adelphia.net)
Date: Wed Dec 18 2002 - 14:51:04 GMT
Erin wrote to Glenn starting with this (>) symbol below.
Mari wonders what a list of possibilities would look like as to why this
discord or disagreement or inability to make a point, to get it, to be
understood to be clear so to allow agreement to happen......didn't doesn't
happen; here and/or anywhere much of the time. That's the impression i get
anyway.
What occurred to me while riding on a Bus from NYC to the Casino is this: in
order for clear communication to happen one needs to know more than just a
language....i know that's an understatement but it seems odd to me how some
issues here in the MoQdg live on like the energizer bunny and i'm wondering
why?
For instance does the fact that i mentioned a bus trip and or a trip to a
casino detract from what i'm attempting to communicate? Is the information
irrelevant? Does your religious bent slant your interpretation; color it
judged perhaps. Does communication get interfered with and or interrupted by
things that might be important to understand because they exist, are
there/here/ present/active and are in effect effecting the light of the
matter. In other words do your judgments about the person or group that is
speaking disallow the best level of communication? i think it does. Is it
possible to grok when prejudice is present? i think not. Doesn't the PRE
part of prejudice suggest that it comes from the past carried forward in
river of karma that goes with that particular slant. Level 4 is being level
3. enacting the collective conscience of 3. i think it's possible for level
4 to be a level 4 prejudice but this is rare air IMO.
How is this related to linear causality or even this post?
M
> Glenn,
>
>
> I didn't like "linear causality" because it was making
> it sound like I was describing some special kind of
> causality. Causality seems linear to me...not just "linear causality."
> If doesn't seem linear to me can you explain to me why.
> I thought you were giving me a hard time because i know
> you knew what I meant when I said AB. You were here when we
> gave the examples when we discussed evolution-causal and teleological.
> If I really thought you didn't know what i meant I would
> have spelled it out for you.
> I didn't understand why you kept making it sound like
> I am describing some kind of special causality with questions
> of "AB causality" and "linear causality".
>
>
> erin
>
> "Causality is defined very loosely, as a 'chain of cause and effect.' This
> means a series of links, in which each one is firmly locked into its two
> neighbors so that the whole chanin is able to stretch out indefinitely in
both
> directions. In this way, every event in the universe is causally linked to
an
> event that comes before it and to one that comes after. There can be no
room
> in this 'creation' for free will, creativity, or synchronicity.
>
> This, of course, does not describe causality sufficiently because a single
> event can be at the junction of many interlinked "chains" of causes which
all
> act upon the result, or a single event can branch out into many "chains"
and
> be at the root of many later and varied events. But, for the present
purpose,
> the idea of causality is that one thing leads to another and another and
so
> on."
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 18 2002 - 14:52:09 GMT