Ron
Goodness knows why I bother with you and your endless objections and
questions that - regardless of how many times I explain - you repeat
in some new form.
Bodvar,
goodness know you have not explained a thing yet,
I do have my hopes.
Bodvar 20 June:
I had said that I don't seek any self-help manual, but an convincing
explanation of existence
Ron:
I merely stated that you are not even forwarding a relevent assertion
that you maintain that any explaination especially the highest quality
explaination, is S/O.
Bo prev:
Improve lives sounds very NewAgeish. With me a convincing
explanation of existence goes a long way, and with the MOQ I found
such an explanation for the first time.
Ron:
But you render that explaination an s/o explaination, as any
intellectual explaination.
Bodvar:
If writing is "intellectual" how can anything conveyed by language be
non-intellectual? The 4th. static level is S/O, there you are right
for once - possibly inadvertently - but it has nothing specially to
do with language or thinking or what SOM calls "mental".
Ron:
I said explainations are intellectual not writing. Not going to
wriggle out of it that easy, according to you all explaintions are S/O
since S/O is the intellectual level, according to you.How
could explainations be anything else? especially an explaination that
convinced an objective geniuse like yourself. It had to be logical and
objective, you'd accept nothing less. A logical objective
explaination.
This really doesent change anything then. The old explaination is
just as convincing, even more so since you yourself claim that it is
the highest static pattern.
Bodvar:
It's hard to reach you. The old explanation was SOM i.e. the S/O
schism as IT REALLY IS, meaning that the distance between ourselves as
subject and objective reality wasn't just great, it was UNBRIDGEABLE,
two universes. Whatever philosophy, theory or explanation there
existed or would come to be would be "in here", the real world "out
there" would be as indifferent and unaffected as it - still according
to SOM - had been from eternity and would remain to eternity.
Ron:
Yesyou keep saying that any explaination IS an S/O explaination
it cant be anything else.
Bodvar:
Then this mysterious Robert Pirsig who said that SOM was a "fall-out"
of a greater reality and further pointed to its time of falling out,
namely with the Greeks. This was my "Road to Damascus" experience,
finally was the Mind/Matter spell broken and all those philosophers
whose books I had browsed without finding this so obvious and
convincing solution, they were at once midgets compared to Pirsig.
Ron:
Exactly how did it convince you, there is no objective evidence,
sounds like a bunch of new age gibberish, higher reality, mystic,
subjective, mumbo jumbo. Stuff you don't care for at all. There is no
logical empirical evidence or support for this claim. "road to
damascus" religouse social feel-good rubbish per your interpretation,
MoQ emerges from the highest static good, objective S/O truth.
Religious epiphanies are hardly a meaningful objective explaination.
Ron:
LILA and it partly abolishing the one and only SOLution I won't go
into here
Ron:
Right because, you can't.. I understand.
SOL allows only ONE explaination, the objective one.
Bodvar explains?
SOL is the assertion that intellect is the subject/object distinction,
this so for the reason that that was Phaedrus' (of ZAMM) breathtaking
assertion. Regarding the MOQ it had to use SOM's own objective
strength (with which it had broken the social level's power) to make
it out of SOM and - after that - make both objective and subjective
(the distinction that is!!!!) into its own static intellectual level.
Ron:
So reality used it's own objective strength to make it (what?) out of
it's own intellectual level. ok.. but that is not how you were
convinced you admitted having a religous epiphany as if DQ revealed
itself to you and only you through your S/O antenne. Is THAT a
objective reasonable explaination? I would'nt think so.
Bodvar explains this time?
It's an elegant,
seamless "inside out turn of the metaphysical sock". But you bugs who
never felt uncomfortable inside SOM's confinement - never knew it as
confinement - will of course bemoan the whole operation.
Ron:
Us bugs just don't believe anything we're told.
I'll ask again, why should we believe you?
What does the SOL offer if it doesent offer anything to any of
the levels?
Bodvar:
Please read before throwing yourself at the keyboard.
Ron:
We only have your own opinion that there is a deeper physical reality.
Can you offer anything more as an explaination. Telling me to read
Pirsig when you yourself claim that Pirsig doesent understand, is
rather useless if I'm going to understand the worth of the SOL. How
and why is it better than objective reality explaining everything
including the subjective experience? is'nt that what SOL is doing?
Please think before you lean against the keyoard
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/md/archives.html
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/md/archives.html
