On 11 November 2007 9:47 P.M. Matt writes to DMB: Matt: Yeah, and I was hoping that you would agree with my glosses on such passages. But you didn't. Our problem is that our vocabularies are not hooking up. Our problem is that everything I say you seem to object to. And since everything you say is in a dialectically opposed position, half the time whatever "pure experience" is seems wrong. But you trot out James and Dewey and Mead--and we read the passages differently because when I gloss it, apparently I get it wrong. I like James and Dewey. I will continue to read James and Dewey and Peirce and Emerson. But there is a good chance we won't read them together because we are just not speaking the same language. All the names you love are names that I think primarily serve to obfuscate. Matt
Hi Matt and DMB, I feel kind of hesitant jumping into this conversation, but I would like to try to put my spin on it, and see if it helps. IMO the fly in the ointment is the description of the social order. The example used to show that man had evolved from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens was the paintings on the cave wall. I see the social level as the evolution to proprietary awareness. One part of that awareness is a sense of emptiness. Dallas sees that within that emptiness lies a luminous intelligence. Using an MOQ term I translate luminous intelligence¹ to a mystical awareness of value¹. In all of our vocabulary there is a personal feel for our own value which another may not hear. E. G., how is the painting of animal on a cave wall an indication of evolution to Homo sapiens? The evolution to the intellectual level is the association between two which becomes law¹. Education (more experience) is needed to explain and change the law, e.g. spinning around the planet will neutralize gravity. Words will always have value luminous intelligence¹ as a part of the dialog. A further evolution of consciousness seems possible to express the total value of being Homo sapiens. Until that occurs for an individual words will always have the value of the individual. Joe On 11/11/07 9:47 PM, "Matt Kundert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > DMB said: > I was hoping that you'd noticed my new explanations. The stuff on > James, Dewey and Mead, for example. I'd hoped you felt a sense of > relief at the absence of any talk about mysticism in relation to pure > experience. > > Matt: > Yeah, and I was hoping that you would agree with my glosses on such passages. > But you didn't. Our problem is that our vocabularies are not hooking up. Our > problem is that everything I say you seem to object to. And since everything > you say is in a dialectically opposed position, half the time whatever "pure > experience" is seems wrong. But you trot out James and Dewey and Mead--and we > read the passages differently because when I gloss it, apparently I get it > wrong. I like James and Dewey. I will continue to read James and Dewey and > Peirce and Emerson. But there is a good chance we won't read them together > because we are just not speaking the same language. > > All the names you love are names that I think primarily serve to obfuscate. > > Matt > _________________________________________________________________ > Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! > http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us > 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/ 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/
