> > [SA previously]
> > The s/o or SOM would answer the Dao is either
> s or o, but you could not answer, so, what is this
> > non-s/o, no-answer?
> > Ron:
> > I think I know where you're going with this, the
> > awareness of no answer,
> > non s/o
> > is a high Quality intellectual pattern if put to
> the task of naming.
[SA previously]
> Yes, this is how I see the intellectual level
> of the moq being able to staticly pattern or in
other
> words, by the task of naming the dao we find
> ourselves within an intellectual pattern where the
coyote
> can't chase the roadrunner...
After I wrote this, Ron, I was reading a short
commentary on Zhuangzi, which reminded me of what I
also perceive the moq to be doing. When I said you
gave a, "non-s/o, no-answer", but the s/o or SOM way
would have to answer that the Dao is either an s or an
o. This fits in with Zhuangzi, too. SOM or s/o must
figure it out, or in this case, figure out the Dao.
S/O would have to name it. S/O is already set up in
such a way that an answer of either s or o is a must.
In other words, reality can be totally figured out by
our intellect by our intellect being able to conclude
on the intellectual level what reality is (s or o),
but the moq claims that reality cannot be totally
figured out on the intellectual level. S and O are
states of the intellectual level. In a limited SOM
mindset the reality is known subjectively or
objectively, and thus, reality is completely known by
one of these two mindsets and in the end, the world is
exactly s or o. The mind can figure it all out and be
one with nature as long as the mind either views the
world subjectively or objectively. SOM has lead to
the objective world view is THE reality. If you think
objectively then you are projecting exactly what
reality is and in other words, the difference between
the objective view and reality is gone. There is no
difference and the objective view IS reality.
I believe Zhuangzi by my own experience. I don't
think this way of thinking, the kind of thinking that
believes it can totally figure out life can happen. I
don't think our thoughts will ever be reality.
Whether my thinking is objective or subjective those
ways will never totally be reality. Therefore that
type of thinking doesn't work that well in these
regards. This is why Zhuangzi liked to write strange
stories that can't be figured out. He's comments also
regard that projecting the world to be right or wrong
is a projection upon reality in which the projector
thinks he/she has figured out exactly what reality is,
and thus thinking if an event is right or wrong is a
projection of realities whims. Zhuangzi finds this
type of thinking to be deceiving. Reality can't be
encapsulated fully on the intellectual level. The moq
understands this, and therefore takes a different
approach. The moq doesn't think or project upon
reality a definite answer, like SOM that would say it
MUST be s or o. The intellectual level that tries to
think moqishly metaphorically speaks about reality,
points at reality, and therefore understands and
provides a place for a type of thinking that isn't
totally reality. It is a thinking that tries to slant
perspective into noticing other aspects of reality are
to be used in understanding reality, not just ones
thoughts. Thus, there is the social level, organic,
and inorganic levels. Also, all these levels are
dynamic for even these levels can't finalize 'what
reality is'. I think Zhuangzi would like the moq.
days are getting shorter,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for
today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
