This is SmumbojumboA here, and this is getting
hilarious, I'm lovin' it!
SA
> > [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/
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
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/
