> [Arlkrime]: > Our mind is still trying to fathom how we "intuit" our cosmic > purpose. But yet all experience is intellectual. > But yet intellect "gets in the way" of this intuition. > But yet there is no such thing as pre-intellectual experience.
[DM]: >Yep, that's the special level of confusion only Ham seems > to reach, I think we have uncovered his cosmic purpose! [Ham] You two (three?) have not been paying attention. Your confusion stems from a misinterpretation of my terms. [Krimearlodamo} And so the collective grows. Resistance is futile! We think that your terms misrepresent things as they are. But we cower under the tower of the edifice of thought you erect in our path. [Ham] On 4/4 I explained to Ron that I acknowledge proprietary awareness in a pure sense as Sensibility, not "experience" which is intellectually differentiated. Because everything in existence is divided by nothingness, including the subject, sensibility takes a binary form: Value/sensibility. I submit that value-sensibility is the essence of man's existence. Hence, there is nothing inconsistent about my statement. [Krimearlodamo] We are sorry for our failure to mark our calendar with the dates of your pontifications. We would be grateful for your assistance in granting us a sign of the measure of their infallibility so that we may color code them for future reference. We have failed to master the intricacies of your linguistic conventions and as your servants, we beg clarification on what distinctions can be made between the term sensation which we know from common usage and sensibility, a word that seems to spring from your superior system of communication? We are likewise concerned to know the proper application of 'intellectually differentiated' Is it anything like 'stuff we recognize'? But we are most puzzled and hope you can sharpen our intellection on the matter of how nothing can divide existence and still be nothing. We know nothing of such nothingness and nothing would please us more than to decrease the nothing that we now know and partake more fully in the not-otherness of the nothing of which you speak. We do have a further concern that decreasing the nothing that we grasp of what you say might render us so full of the otherness of nothing that our collective head might explode. Should we more properly entertain the fear that failure to assimilate a fuller knowledge of not-other than something could cause and undo increase in the nothingness we derive from you wisdom and that our collective head might conversely implode? In either event, as we hope that others may eventually partake of our collective, you are surely sensible of the depth of our concern that our Sensibility of spaciousness be preserved to accommodate the incorporation of otherness into our oneness. [Ham] Moreover, since the attributes of existence are intellectualized "products" of value-sensibility, experience does not reveal cosmic purpose. This can only be conceived intuitively--by the introspective development of a logically plausible ontology that takes into account the fact that experiential truth is relative and knowledge is only an intellectual paradigm. [Krimelarlodamo] We are greatly desirous to churn out additional attributes of existence in the hope of becoming sensible of the experience of nothing so as to have our cosmic purpose revealed. But as our introspections and intuitions result from the vote of committees and subcommittees we are concerned for how to render logically plausible ontological introspections into the form of motions that can be seconded. We are grateful for whatever guidance you can offer as some of us are a bit sea-sick from the intellectual paradigms shifting about the table. [Ham] Essentialism is such a theory. It posits man as the locus of his universe and vindicates the inaccessibility of Absolute Truth as consistent with the principle of Individual Freedom. Unlike the MoQ, Essentialism can acknowledge existence as a subject/object reality because it is founded on an undifferentiated source. [Krimearlodamo] We are in accord that a theory Essentialism is a theory. We have amended motions on the floor to acknowledge the inaccessibility of Absolute Truth to our loci of individual sensibility. We are closer to seeing that nothing divides sense and non-sense at your locus of individual sensibility. We see individual freedom as you express it as a foregone conclusion but we await subcommittee reports before a quorum can be mustered to render a full vote. [Ham] Thanks for allowing me this opportunity to clarify my position. [Krimearlodamo] Indeed your guidance is moving us toward a fuller discernment of the not-other than nothingness dividing us from fuller acceptance of your views. Your application to join the collective is under review and pending receipt of your application fee. We will entertain a motion to adjourn. Arlo? DM? Did one of you take the minutes? 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/
