On Monday 27 April 2009 10:37 PM markhsmit writes: Hi Joe, Thanks for the explanation. It's not that you are confusing, it's that I get confused. The burden of my scientific training leads to that. Let me explain my view of scientific thought and religious or spiritual thought in another way. (I don't like the term religious since it has dogmatic connotations, and an apparent abuse of power. The church is political but that is not religion to me. Spirituality can become awfully dogmatic too, but I digress...) What you describe with the bones is a scientific line of inquiry. The arrow of inquiry is towards building blocks, "the spot on the bug on the leaf on the tree in the hole in the ground..." The spiritual arrow of inquiry is in the other direction, outward. The men, and the saints and the angels and the demigods and the godhead, etc. One arrow is pointing in one direction, the other in the other direction. By dividing Quality into two, that is a scientific approach, two parts make a whole, in a nice little box. Cheers, Willblake2 Hi Markhsmit and all, Previously I spoke about the Social level Conscious/Mechanical. The intellectual level evolves from the social level. What is the intellectual level. Bo describes the intellectual level as SOL, Subject Object Language. Pythagoras observed A2+B2=C2 (I don¹t know how to make the squared number appear on my computer) in the description of a right triangle. If you measure the hypotenuse and one side you can compute the other side measurement. Science is about discovery of change. MOQ proposes an evolutionary order of change. A manifestation at the intellectual level has three aspects: What it is, Active, what it isn¹t, Passive, what supports it, Neutral. SOL, the intellectual level has one undefined element DQ, one defined element SQ, and the conceptualized support level DQ/SQ. The conceptualized support level existence is not undefined, but is a defined level in a hierarchy in existence, evolution! Science questions this hierarchy from an imho misguided openness to discovery. This attitude removes the basis of morality leaving it open to what works. War, for example, produces a lot of new discoveries. Instead of four levels, I prefer the analogy to the musical scale Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Ti, for seven levels. The intervals between Mi-Fa and SI-Do are halftone intervals requiring a change in approach, a shock. I don¹t know if this equates to catalyst. Science is open to discovery, but not open to the concept that things work differently in a hierarchy of different levels, inorganic, organic, social, intellectual. Imho Joe
On 4/27/09 10:37 PM, "markhsmit" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Joe, > > Thanks for the explanation. It's not that you > are confusing, it's that I get confused. The burden > of my scientific training leads to that. > > Let me explain my view of scientific thought and religious or > spiritual thought in another way. (I don't like the term > religious since it has dogmatic connotations, and an apparent > abuse of power. The church is political but that is not religion > to me. Spirituality can become awfully dogmatic too, but I digress...) > > What you describe with the bones is a scientific line of inquiry. > The arrow of inquiry is towards building blocks, "the spot on the > bug on the leaf on the tree in the hole in the ground..." The spiritual > arrow of inquiry is in the other direction, outward. The men, > and the saints and the angels and the demigods and the godhead, etc. > > One arrow is pointing in one direction, the other in the other direction. > By dividing Quality into two, that is a scientific approach, two parts make > a whole, in a nice little box. > > Cheers, > Willblake2 > > On Apr 27, 2009, at 1:04:04 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Markhsmit and all, > > As Marsha pointed out IMO is better written as imho (in my humble opinion). > I am sorry my writing is so confusing. I will try to do better. I use > quotations marks to highlight a word that is obscure to me. > > Imho the language of science leaves out a description of its metaphysical > origins. It relies on an assumed acceptance of mathematical logic without > a metaphysical description of logic or how mathematics fits in. > > Them bones! Them bones! Them dry bones! The arm bone connected to the > shoulder bone! Them bones gonna walk around! A nice melody! > > Conscious/Mechanical, metaphysically describe a social level with free > will. DQ (undefined) (conscious)/ SQ (defined) (mechanical) is the ruler. > To measure is an action regarding quantity which is from SOM metaphysics, > which MOQ replaces with experience. ³How does it strike me?² is a measure > open to research by further questions. > > Assuming that to apply a scientific method to spirituality, or to apply a > spiritual method to science may not be adequate, presupposes a metaphysics > to limit the terms. Otherwise whatever you say is the metaphysical > assumption. It is difficult to comprehend metaphysical assumptions when you > obscurely change your point of view. > > You seem to correctly distinguish numbers of the female sex. Imho a number > supports its own logic in a moment of indefinable experience. > > > > 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/ 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/
