Good Day Mary, And welcome to old and new discussions. I'da greeted you earlier but I've been distracted...
However, the nature of my distractions are the subject heading of your thread, and so I feel allowed to dive in rudely and interject my own opinions in your dialogue here with Bo. I would offer you, "hope you don't mind", but that's probably not the exact truth. I hope you do "mind". I hope you mind a lot and often and from what I've read of your posts so far, you do mind and you mind very well. So thanks for your minding so far. Mary: > I need to get to the rereading, for I am mired in an inability to > distinguish the defining moment separating the Social from the > Intellectual. Why this is so important to me I do not know. > > John: See that right there is good minding because as far as I can see, it's the crucial question of the whole MoQ. If morality is determined by hierarchical relationship between society and intellect, then that point you wonder over is crucial-crucial-crucial. Nicely picked apart with the ole analytic knife, I say, good on ya. And yet... even more profound, you do not know! You don't know why it's important, has high value, but you do know. Get that part Bo? There is a knowing that does not know. There is an awareness that is non-intellectual. It's empirically demonstrable as the air you breathe and demonstrated aptly here for your pleasure by our new friend. Mary: I reread some of Daddy's posts last night. What I see is his struggle to > integrate DQ with the universe with a capital U. He was always a bigger > thinker than me. He spent his time trying to construct a unified field > theory of the MoQ, while I struggle along just trying to figure out how to > get through the day. The only thing I'm sure of is that the older I get > the > less I know. :) > > John: Ah well you make my old daddy- heart glad. I have a daughter who is reading ZAMM but keeps getting distracted and I'm hoping one day to discuss the MoQ with her. To think that it sometimes happens is encouraging. I'm with your dad, I think. I like the big unified construct thingy too. Not to be married to it, but to build the best damn one I can, airtight, no holes, everything figured out from quarks to kittens and some good poeisis on the side. Metaphysical framing where the studs all line up with the joists and the rafters and the lines all clean and perfect from every angle. > Is there much speculation about a 5th level? I tend to focus on the static > levels because they seem to hold more meaning for me than pondering the > great unknowable DQ. The idea of a 5th level and what it might be > intrigues > me. Based on your recent posts, perhaps you see it as a melding of the > mystical with the practical, as in your hope for a blending of Christian > spirituality with science - or have I misunderstood? > > I like the number four, myself. Perhaps its part of my poetical longing, to find rhymes in reality but I got four limbs, there are four directions and many of the profoundest thoughts on reality I've read from others describe reality as moving through four stages. M. Scott Peck, one of my favorites, describes the spiritual development of an individual moving through 4 distinct levels from chaotic, to rule bound, to agnostic, to mystic. And he also describe the empirical experience of true community development going through four stages - psuedo community, chaos, emptiness and finally True Community. See? Four works for lots of reality pictures. The Cherokee had two mystic numbers, 4 and 7. I didn't know that till recently but I've always had a strong affinity for 7 and I just learned last week that this is a mystic number for the cherokee because it represents the 7 directions your soul can go: left, right, back, forward, up, down and .... inward. Get that one Bo? These simple minded savages subverted the Subject Object paradigm because they comprehended that inward was a direction you could go, not the basis of your being. They saw the subjective self as another path of investigation, rather than a firm platform of SOMish knowing. But never mind. Bo and I have an agreement. He doesn't comprehend me and I don't comprehend him. We've got a mutual non-comprehension pact. > It's all good, > Mary Aha, I used to say that, but then I realized that if it's all good, good no longer exists. But then there are more than a few postulaters of that heresy hereabouts, so don't mind me. Or rather, please do! John 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/
