-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 3:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ
> Marsha: > Intellectual patterns are objectified abstract symbols, but I have > said nothing about 'thinking beings'. Bo: Please read ZAMM's Greek part where the intellectual level's emergence (there as SOM) is portrayed. Greetings Bo, If you want me to reread part of ZMM or LILA, at least point to a chapter. In this recent book I read on the pre-Socratic sophists, it verified you rational/irrational split. Before Plato and Aristotle all was in relationship to social level and multiple truths were quite possible. Only with Aristotle did the either/or become rational and all else irrational. Even now Ron, silly boy, accuses me of being irrational as if he doesn't understand I see that as a sign of intelligence. And I have been quite clear at confirming that I understand the Intellectual Level to represent the subject/object split. For the moment, I'm wondering if the problem is not rooted in the self/object duality. While the subjective vales are allegedly missing in the Intellectual Level, what of the illusionary self. This 'self' is what Buddhism so adequately addresses, and is the most difficult for the West to consider, imho. The quality event creates both self and object even if it is within an intellectual patterned event. The self becomes an existing abstract 'thinking being' that is manipulated with the rest of the patterns. Do you think it would be worth giving a little thought to 'self' versus 'subjective values'? Marsha 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/
