<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Yes, there are a few flavors of Dualism, but they are all based on Plato, and distinct enough. I am more into being wrong than right, believe me - but the pattern view you are talking about is pretty much Neutral Monism. The threaded view is a type of dualism, and in some extreme examples arguably Parallelism or (egh) Phenominalism.<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>And the reason I bring this up, again, is while interacting with the rest of the world, wanting them to understand things like the Proactionary Principle and such, we need to reduce terms to basics and only claim what is our own as new. Coming to the table saying we espouse the "Threaded View" and the other party returning "You mean Cartesian Dualism?" would not strengthen our standing.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-style-span">So hey- <I>If</I> you get a chance, I am not asking to be catered to - it would help a great deal all involved if the distinctions between Threaded and Patterned, Dualism and Monism could be illustrated by examples that would not make them so.</SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-style-span"><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>At worst, you have a new Dualism an Monism here ; )</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Bret K.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"><DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On Jan 26, 2006, at 8:36 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">On 1/27/06, <B class="gmail_sendername">Bret Kulakovich</B> <<A href="mailto:bret@bonfireproductions.com">bret@bonfireproductions.com</A>> wrote:<DIV><SPAN class="gmail_quote"></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> What is more important in this thread is the terminology being used<BR>to re-name classical philosophical definitions. I find this is a bit<BR>harrowing. It will be hard for others to take these postulates<BR>seriously when the rest of our species is using "monism" and <BR>"dualism" while we apply different terms. The geography of<BR>Transhumanism is on a landscape we must share with all - even if they<BR>died thousands of years ago.</BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR> I'm all in favor of reusing existing terminology where possible, but unfortunately "dualism" means at least two completely different things, which makes it worse than useless for our purposes here.<BR> </DIV><BR> </DIV>- Russell<BR><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">_______________________________________________</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">extropy-chat mailing list</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><A href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</A></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><A href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat</A></DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></SPAN><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></BODY></HTML>