Bo, Ah, Bo, it must be lonely at the top, just you and Krimel. You don't even know what the intellectual Q-level means. So before you begin using such high minded concepts I suggest you start again. You base so much on history which demonstrates that you have no idea. Sure you have lots of airy-fairy ideas of something grand, but what is it? Oh, don't ask me to read Pirsig, that kind of deflection is too transparent. Why don't you explain it to me in three simple logical statements without resorting to changing word definitions into some cultish MoQ speak. You remind me of witches and warlocks chanting around a fire, summoning the supreme being Mr. Q. All will be better once he gets here. Bo, you are like the Masons of old, with secret handshakes and secret meanings for words. So far the superficiality of your statements are nothing beyond commandments. Thou shalt receive the Q else-wise burn in eternal SOM. Ha ha, it is comical in its triviality. Bo, you are stuck in some little paradigm of Oneness which reminds me of the '60s. Sure hope you are not paying cash for this education. And, don't bring in religions and philosophies that you know nothing about. There are more books than Lila.
With regards, Mark On Feb 14, 2010, at 10:32:46 AM, [email protected] wrote: Hi Ham 14 Feb.: Mark before > > I believe there is a drive for the supremacy of the intellect. > > This is one of the things that bothers me about MoQ. It > > could be argued that Socialism is more intellectual than > > Capitalism (maybe not argued well, but argued nonetheless). > > The problem with control over all through the intellect > > is that there are many contradicting intellects. A democracy > > seems to allow for this, and appeals to the masses (who of > > course cannot think for themselves) by the virtue of choices. Ham: > It bothers me, too. But I think the problem with the MoQ is > epistemological rather than political. It is impossible to discuss > intellect or morality with those who regard these uniquely human > functions as extracorporeal levels or patterns. I called Mark and John "an one-eyed leading a blind", but you and Mark beats my supply of "lost" metaphors. Mark speaking about "drive for the supremacy of intellect" not having the faintest idea what the intellectual Q-level means and you chiming in with your notorious criticism of the MOQ. However you your attack are from an open opposition and ten times better than the alleged supporters' misguided tangle Capitalism, socialism, fascism, nazism ....etc. All "isms" are intellectual (read SOM) terms for political trends. From the MOQ seen the first two matches Q-intellect where "economy" has been isolated and made an object for study, eventually to be improved by some program. Fascism and nazism on the other hand matches social value in the sense of not having any "nomi" or "logi" as their goal, rather to bring existence (in this case Italy and Germany) away from modernity back to some ideal past. (for Italy the Roman and for Germany some "übermenschlisches" mythological past. > Speaking of political arguments, I'm running one of the best essays on > Socialism I've ever seen in my Values Page column this week. Jack > Swift is an attorney experienced in constitutional as well as domestic > law. Here is an excerpted paragraph in which he compares all the > forms of collectivist rule: Your essay you can stuff, with the most friendliest greetings from. 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/ 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/
