On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:06 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > > Marsha asked Ian: > Will the Social Level expand and evolve into something different than > the social level? > > dmb says: > > It already did. It's called the intellectual level. Or rather it's better to > think > of the social level as the parent of the intellectual level because it became > independent with it's own rules and purposes.
Marsha: And I believe there is the beginning of a quality-ievel (not DQ) which will represent a going beyond thoughts as we know them. The Intellectual Level will/is its parent. This belief is built on my experience via meditation. > > > Marsha said: > None demonstrate anything like an expanded intellectual pattern. > > dmb says: > Are you saying that there are no parallels on the social level that compare > to the MOQ's expansion of rationality? I have no idea what this question is about. > Are you saying that evolutionary developments do not occur within levels? I have stated that all patterns are ever-changing, relative and impermanent. > That seems quite obviously wrong. Consider the difference between ferns and > eagles. You confuse quality with your personal judgements. > They're both biological and yet the latter is clearly more evolved than the > former. > Consider the difference between the chief of a tribe of hunter-gatherers and > the > mayor of New York City. They're both leaders at the social level and yet the > former > is clearly more evolved than the latter. (That was a joke.) >From a judgement point-of-view maybe it's more true than a joke. > To say that intellect = SOM is like saying biology = reptiles. I understand the metaphysical assumption underlying intellectual patterns to be of the subject-object variety. It is deeply embedded in our psyche (habits) and deeply imbedded in our language. But then I speak only of intellectual static patterns of value only. I exclude words like intellect and intelligence because they confuse the issue. > SOM is an intellectual description of reality, not the capacity > to create intellectual descriptions. Big difference. The most basic definition of a metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality. A metaphysics represents reality. And sure it described and re-described and re-described, but under it all they are all varieties of subject- object reality. Enlightenment, it seems to me, is about transcending self and object thinking. I really am not responsible for what you think. I wish you enlightenment!!! But what you "think" is meaningless to me. I have and do meditate and think it valuable to stay mindful (as best I can). These experiences have been more insightful than hearing what you think. So I speak about the MoQ I know, which leans toward Bo's way of thinking. And because RMP has clearly stated that there are many truths, and in regards to philosophy a position can be both true and false, and that truth is relative, I am correct to stick with what I know from my own experience. Marsha ___ 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
