For John and Mary, 21 Dec. John wrote to 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 before:: > > 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 continued: > 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 speaks about the social - intellectual separating moment, that it for some reason is important for her.and John - missing no chance - grabs Mary's "knowing/not knowing" as if some proof of an awareness that is non-intellectual . But dear John I have railed against the "intellect as awareness" (self-consciousness) which is SOM's "holy grail". Will return to that if you express some interest.. Mary again: > > 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. Speaking about the social-intellectual separating moment I remember your dad Ken writing about some burial sites recently discovered (how old I don't remember) and I believe his opinion was that THIS spelt the bio.-socio. transition (and I agree). However I can't remember him hinting to any socio.-intellect ditto, but I regard that accounted for in ZAMM (the Aretê-SOM shift) > > 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 agree about DQ, there's far too much Quality-yelping around this place. Regarding the 5th. level it's a intriguing issue. The MOQ has a level-like relationship with the intellectual level, but of course it's no static level, rather the Quality Reality. Such an upheaval as this has never been experienced before - the only comparable event was the social - intellectual transformation, but that was merely a level shift.The "static - dynamic/static" is a total inside-out turn of the existential "sock". But the SOM "bugs" who people this site scurry as fast as they can back into the dark and smelly confinement. ;-). > 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. Scott-Peck's I haven't heard about, but his Chaotic - Rule bound - Agnostic - Mystic is the SQ levels in different words. Fantastic! It proves that many thinkers have been on to the same notion. Remember Scott Robert and his Owen Barfield (the "participation scheme)? > 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. Yes, I get it and agree, but rather than subverting SOM they never developed the subject/object distinction into metaphysical proportions (as it really IS) My assertion is that that it also happened in the Orient, why we regard them as mystical.. > 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. I think the non-comprehension is lifting. At least mine. Bodvar 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/
