ROGER APOLOGIZES
Glove,
I really need to apologize on the 5 question response. They say we
shouldn't use humor in writing, and now I know why. I agree with what you
said and specifically with your emphasis that this depends upon perception.
I think my post from Sunday was coming from a very similar angle by stating
that the duality was an intellectual construct.
I read into your post that you implied from a many truth pragmatic
intellectual standpoint that a) it could be viewed dualistically, and that
b) it could be viewed holistically, or non dualistically. Either approach
could be the truth. I thought this was actually a fascinating new angle on
the problem.
This then got me off onto the tract though that if we can pragmatically
answer questions either way, then what is the purpose of ever answering
questions? This was in no way implying that yours was a non answer.(Any
more than any other answer is)
Well, as you can see, the whole topic has me spinning. When I originally
wrote my response, I was similarly tongue tied (or is it typing finger
tied?), so I cut out much of my answer and was left with what was intended
as a compliment of a new interesting twist, but came out as a dismissal of
what you wrote.
Rest assured that I have the utmost respect for you and specifically for
your post on the 5 questions. This IS an interesting new thread, and I plan
to work it in to my next post.
Sorry for the unclear post.....I find I often have trouble expressing myself
Roger
PS I recently posted in a discussion with Lithien that you are a fellow
"Conceptor" which means that I thought you stood out for unbounded,creative,
fresh , conceptual thinking..... In case you are wondering, this was meant
as a compliment too.
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mailing List Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
Unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with
UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in the body of the email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:49 BST