Re: MD Dealing with S/O

From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Sep 24 2003 - 22:03:26 BST

  • Next message: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT: "Re: MD Four options"

    Hello everyone

    >From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
    >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O
    >Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:03:37 EDT
    >
    >Dan:
    >In my experience I have found it is
    >best not to rely on what another person says, especially someone (Mark) who
    >also apparently has NOT read the book.
    >
    >Do you understand me now?
    >
    >Dan
    >
    >Hello Dan,
    >I make mistakes from time to time, and when i make mistakes i try to
    >correct
    >them. Robert Pirsig makes mistakes from time to time also, as do you, and
    >computers working for the Tax dept. The only difference with the Tax
    >computers is
    >that they CAN screw up your life big time!
    >I apologised to Dave M and i must apologise to you also. I apologise for my
    >incorrect statement regarding mind and Lila's child.

    Hi Mark

    No apology necessary. I should be the one apologizing for assuming you
    hadn't read LC. It's true we all make mistakes and I've certainly made my
    share...

    >Having said that, in a letter to Anthony McWatt, RMP recommends that mind
    >is
    >a term to be avoided whenever possible. And as the RMP writing to Anthony
    >McWatt is the same RMP replying to Lila's child contributors, i do not feel
    >i can
    >be charged with the accusation of misleading people, not that you are
    >launching that charge?

    Not at all. In LC, RMP explains the evolution of his thought processes
    regarding SOM and whether it belongs in the MOQ so it seems reasonable to
    assume his thinking on the use of mind is also an evolving set of patterns
    and not something set in stone. It seems pretty clear to me that he does
    equate intellectual patterns of value with mind. He says they are equal.

    >
    >As the compiler of Lila's child, may i ask: How do you feel about the use
    >of
    >the term mind? Is it to be avoided as RMP suggests?

    I believe he says "avoided when possible." If someone insists on the MOQ
    giving a definition for intellectual patterns of value (even though we
    already know what intellect is) then perhaps it's not possible to avoid the
    use of mind, just as it's impossible to eliminate SOM.

    >I have read Lila's child by the way.

    You put a smile on my face. Thank you

    Dan

    _________________________________________________________________
    Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!
    http://msnmessenger-download.com

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 Sep 24 2003 - 22:13:28 BST