On Wednesday 25 February 2009 10:27 AM David Buchanan writes to Bo: <snip> > Secondly, the intellect makes distinctions and cuts things up in > either case, whether we're talking about SOM or the MOQ. Both are > derived from experience but SOM cuts things up differently than > the MOQ does. In either case, these intellectual descriptions > have to account for the experienced difference between, let's > say, reading about rocks in a geology book and stubbing your > toe. SOM will construe this as the difference between mental > experience and physical experience and not only that but also > says these are the only two categories possible because all of > reality is either one or the other, even though there are big > problems trying to explain how these two categories are > related. But the MOQ dissolves the gap between mind and matter by > putting the four levels together in an evolutionary relationship > and, again, by saying that DQ is neither mind nor matter.
> Thirdly, you seem to think that the MOQ's intellectual level is > equal to SOM simply because it makes distinctions. But that's > just what intellect does. The mystics of all cultures are > interested in going beyond intellect and very often you'll hear > this expressed in terms of going beyond the pairs of opposites. > See, regardless of whether or not one is working to get beyond > SOM or any other intellectual description, the trick is to see > that intellect always chops things into pairs, pairs that more or > less define each other; up and down, good and evil, hot and cold, > wet and dry, human and divine, man and woman, child and geezer, > static and dynamic, subjective and objective, etc., etc.. Unlike > SOM, however, the MOQ already has the transcendence of the pairs > of opposites built right into it. Again, DQ is neither physical > nor psychical and is in fact characterized as undivided. Within > the intellectual description DQ and sq are opposites but DQ is > not a pair of anything. It is undifferentiated experience, an > experience prior to any such conceptualizations. And of course > the MOQ objects to the notion that some kinds of experience can > be dismissed as unimportant on account of it being "just" > subjective. In the MOQ, ideas and concepts are not less real or > important that rock and rain. <snip> Hi DMB, In metaphysics Aristotle proposed a division between Substance and Accident. In his theory of knowledge he proposes that the mind abstracts the essence from a concept and gives it intentional existence in a mind, in contrast to the real existence in the substance. The mind has a real existence in the substance. He divides everything into Substance and Accidents. Quality is the first accident you can know. It tops the list of accidents, quality, quantity, time, place etc. How are the ³mystics of all cultures² able to communicate, so that you can speak of the mystics of all cultures? The MOQ denies an evolving mind. Everything is evolving not just mind. The difference between levels is evolution not mind. The mystics cannot go beyond ³intellect² since intellect is a level of evolution, and how can I go beyond evolution? IMO there are 7 levels in evolution as exemplified in the tonal octave. Are you saying that in evolution there is a level above intellect in which the mystic resides? IMO there is a DQ of evolution, and a DQ of each level. Joe 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/
