On Jan 15, 2010, at 2:51 AM, markhsmit wrote: > Hi Marsha, > Thanks for your response. The only place I would be at odds > with you, by inference, is the notion that gods are man-made > legends, while Quality is not. I do not see the difference in > their fundamental man-made basis. > Cheers, > Mark
Hi Mark, Quality is Experience is Reality. God, the definition, the associated connotations, the dogmas, all the stories, the history and etc., make it an unacceptable word/concept for me. Marsha > > On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:41:12 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics > Date: January 14, 2010 11:41:12 PM PST > To: [email protected] > > On Jan 15, 2010, at 1:40 AM, markhsmit wrote: > >> Mark: >> I'm not sure what you mean by more moral and logical. >> Those terms are defined through convention. I suppose >> that within that convention what you state is true. But only >> within that convention. What about outside of that? > > Marsha: > There is silence. > > > >> Mark: >> There is the educational God, which is an intellectual concept >> that as such goes no further than ones thoughts. There is >> the found God, that is not acquired educationally. This is a >> God that transcends the intellect. Such a God is then translated >> to the intellect in order to describe it to others and for no other >> reason. Those seeking to describe it find themselves at a loss >> for words, since it is not an intellectual concept. The MoQ does >> not state anything. There is no God of the MoQ who is making >> the rules at this point. This is an open discussion to come to >> terms with a personal sense of MoQ. The intellectual part of >> this philosophy is only a simple translation. If you doubt me, >> go ahead and describe Quality in more than just a few catch >> phrases with ambiguous meaning. > > God or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made > constructs, myths and legends and these concepts are not > meaningful. > > You know the Quality that is described is not the true Quality. > > >> Mark: >> Quality is reality is experience is a poor substitution of words >> for the truth. > > Marsha: > They work for a conventional truth. > > >> Mark: >> Your Quality is your reality is your experience is closer to the truth. >> If I deny experience then I deny your reality,not mine. > > Marsha: > I notice you haven't denied your experience. > > >> Mark: >> If Quality is reality, then why was it called Quality? >> Does this lend a larger sense of reality than the term reality? > > Marsha: > It allows for conventional discussion. > > >> Mark: >> I think it is great that you believe that reality is experience. If >> you describe to me what exactly you mean by these words, that >> is derive a complex set of equalities, you can form a better picture >> for me of your belief. > > Marsha: > Experience IS reality. I, you, me and yours are conventional tags; > there is no one to understand the words. The words flow like a > river. Picture a river. > > >> Mark: >> Once you create a picture with feeling you get a little closer to >> that you are seeking. Then you can drop the words entirely and >> be Quality not objectify it asa concept. This is one way to break >> the SOM. > > Marsha: > Dropping the words, for some unknown reason, has not been the > problem. Keeping them dropped is difficult. Convince me that to > drop words indefinitely is necessary. Death comes soon enough? > > Cheers to you. > > > Marsha > > > > > >> Cheers, >> Mark >> >> On Jan 14, 2010, at 1:34:07 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: MarshaV <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics >> Date: January 14, 2010 1:34:07 AM PST >> To: [email protected] >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> I would think that not to believe in God would be the more moral and >> logical decision. God is a social construction taught and assumed >> since childhood. The MoQ states that Quality is reality is experience. >> Will you deny experience? >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:51 PM, markhsmit wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha, >>> Yes, analogies or systems all the way down and up. Which is of course >>> an analogy in itself. You speak of the liberty of belief in one thing or >>> another. I do not believe that exists. Can one force him/herself to >>> believe in something. Belief exists because it feels right, not because it >>> is convenient. If a belief in God is not intellectual, then no belief is. >>> It is >>> easy to confuse complexity for intellect, but it is all the same, to me at >>> least. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Mark >>> On Jan 11, 2010, at 12:04:59 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> From: MarshaV <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics >>> Date: January 11, 2010 12:04:59 AM PST >>> To: [email protected] >>> >>> On Jan 11, 2010, at 12:59 AM, markhsmit wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> Very interesting post. It kind of has the ring of analogues all the way >>> down. I do like that, but in my understanding, conventionally, or statically >>> speaking, some patterns are conventionally more useful than others. >>> This would make the levels more important. Should I be a "believer" in >>> God because it's a social imperative? If it's to avoid being burned at the >>> stake, it might be a smart idea to state that one believes in God, but for >>> any intellectual reason, then I don't think so. >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Bodvar to virtually all of us: >>>> >>>> Yes, you bet, metaphysics in the the true MOQ sense is reality, that's >>>> the very point! >>> >>>> Hello Bodvar and All: >>>> When I read this, something dawned on me but couldn?t give it >>>> expression until I lay, quietly on my electric blanket (it is fucking >>>> freezing here!). >>>> Then it came to me...the passage in ZMM (I think) where Phaedrus has a >>>> conversation with a priest and they are talking about the liturgy, the >>>> most sacred part: when the wine changes into blood, and the bread >>>> changes into the body of Christ. Phaedrus asks along the lines of; >>>> (sorry I do not have a copy of ZMM with me) yes, but this is >>>> symbolically..yeS??. No! says the priest, this is real. At that >>>> moment, the wine and bread change into the actual blood and body of >>>> Jesus Christ! >>>> Christians all over the world actually and factually believe that this >>>> is indeed the case. And, further more, the Bible is of course seen, >>>> not as a book full of stories ( if I may take the liberty, as a book >>>> full of fingers pointing to the moon!!) but as the actual word of God. >>> >>>> [Mark]: In response to Andre. >>>> So Andre, you believe that it is not the word of God. Let me remind >>>> you that that is a belief too, no more or less than to believe it is. >>>> However, your posts sounds rather righteous, as if you believe >>>> that your belief is correct. How did you get to this higher level? >>>> How is it that your belief somehow is more right than, say, a >>>> Christian's? In fact your belief is so blind, that you think that >>>> it is somehow outside the system of beliefs, somehow the right way to >>>> believe. Once you realize the relative nature of beliefs, >>>> that is, that they are just opinions, you may see a little more. >>>> So, yes, the wine is the blood of Christ to those that believe it, >>>> and it is not to those who believe otherwise. There is >>>> no right or wrong, unless you believe you are God. But of course if >>>> your system of belief is that there isn't one, then you are something >>>> else that is all knowing, or not. There is a God and there isn't a >>>> God, both are correct. No need to take sides. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mark >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________________________________ >>> >>> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________________________________ >> >> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... > > > > > > > > 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/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
