Hi Andre, You said: "The MOQ opposes SOM, or rather 'rectifies' SOM ..." Then later you say, "The MOQ is an expansion of the conventional subject-object theoretical structure. Nothing 'beyond'."
I understand that you believe this, but the slip at the beginning is telling. You had it right at first - "The MOQ opposes SOM". This is clear, direct and in accord with the theme of both books. There is no need for added qualifications. No need for back-peddling. In many previous posts you objected to the SOM/SOL hypothesis on the grounds that it excluded Eastern thought, which you characterized as being non-SOM/SOL thought. In light of the MoQ, which says everything has a home in one of the 4 levels except Dynamic Quality, can you explain where Eastern thought (which you say transcends SOM) is to be placed in the MoQ Static Hierarchy? Would you deviate from that to say that everything fits within the 4 static levels except Dynamic Quality and Eastern Thought? Do you see just how close we are? If the SOM immune system would stop quibbling we'd have universal agreement, don't you think? Best, Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:moq_discuss- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Andre Broersen > Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 7:15 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] From Psychology to Empiricism > > Marsha to Andre: > > Intellectual Static Patterns of Value are reified concepts and the > rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. > > Andre: > This clearly shows your misunderstanding of the MOQ Marsha. The whole > 'idea' of reification is a SOM product. The MOQ opposes SOM, or rather > 'rectifies' SOM, by suggesting that 'patterns of value' are a better > tool to grasp our understanding of (conventional) reality. To wit: no > reification but the ongoing process of valuation. > > Marsha: > As far as I know intellectual patterns are as I stated above, and I > have seen no evidence to the contrary. > > Andre: > You have been presented with plenty of evidence Marsha by many here on > this list and notably dmb. But I know your thoughts on his posts...you > read them with your eyes closed. > > Marsha: > And surely you wouldn't expect my understanding to change because dmb, > Arlo, Ron, Dan or the Pope think differently. My mind doesn't work > like that. > > Andre: > Not for a minute would I expect this from you Marsha. You are the mind > trying to see and understand your mind much like the eye that tries to > see itself. This really is all your own soliloquize. > > Marsha: > I do miss Bo. Because he kept the discussion centered on the MoQ's > being beyond SOM, and the MoQ's understanding transcending > subject/object metaphysical thinking, > > Andre: > The MOQ is an expansion of the conventional subject-object theoretical > structure. Nothing 'beyond'. Bodvar does not accept this and you do not > accept this. What this means is that through this rejection you have > thrown ZMM as well as LILA overboard. Just read dmb's post > carefully...with your eyes open this time. But I do believe you have > developed a blind spot as far as seeing this is concerned, or rather > the Cleveland Harbour syndrome. > > I understand Bodvar is working on his own web-site. Hope you can join > him there soon. > > 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
