Hi Marsha
I think you're headed toward Descartes "I think, therefore I am",
aren't you? Since all you can really know is conceptual, everything
else might just be your imagination.
No, everything is connected to everything and is ever-changing. No
reason to call me despicable names. I think the truth makes you
uncomfortable.
Ouch, sorry about that. It was not my intention to insult you.
But I'm pretty interested in that "truth" that you think makes me uncomfortable.
What truth is that?
But I think the MoQ has something to say about that. Since concept are
intellectual patterns, and intellectual patterns are dependent on all
lower levels, it *proves* that the underlying patterns are just as
real as the intellectual concepts that we do know to be real.
You wrote "that we do know to be real" What is this knowing??? And
what is this real??? Listen to the words of Lila.
Ok, cut that last part. And you can probably exchange the remaining "real" for
"phenomenal" if it makes more sense to you.
I think the four (4) levels are ingenious, perfect in fact. But I agree
there is a problems. I had to go to Buddhism to make the levels
meaningful. But that meaningful seems to indicate much more than what
goes into what bucket. Four ways of knowing? Maybe, but that's not
quite right either. I don't know what to say. Let the author speak.
Really! Or if you think you can explain their significance, please
do. I used the word significance purposefully.
I made a very serious attempt at explain the level's significance in my latest
essay "The levels undressed". Saving the discreteness and dependency was a high
priority. It's on www.moq.org and I urge you to read it if you're interested.
Magnus
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/
