Ron, You're the one making the assumption by thinking YOU know.
I have presented quotes from many sources suggesting from several angles that Eastern cultures suffer from the same dualistic self/object illusion that the West suffers from. You have ignored these suggestions and the supporting quotes. I have asked you for an example of a culture that has transcended dualistic thinking, and you have not offered such an example. I think that to view the East as a paradise inhabited by millions of Buddhas is a illusion. Marsha On Sep 5, 2010, at 9:20 AM, X Acto wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: X Acto <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sun, September 5, 2010 9:18:32 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Able to change well. > > > > > > Quite an assumption to think to know how other > cultures understand "be-ing" > > This is a very big and important subject of inquirey > one that is skipped, ignored or missed by undertanding > one culture as the most evolutionarily advanced and > its way of understanding and conceptualizing experience. > > Prejudice one would call it, but unless suicide is evolutionarily > superior in some fashon that I am missing, then it would seem > "Qualities invention" has failed. > > This has become a huge central theme on the discuss and if we can > all avoid being sarcastic imp's a fruitful dialog could emerge. > Check our smug at the door and let us open a thread on the topic. > > An inquirey into "be-ing" I'll name it. > > > > -R > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 9:02:17 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Able to change well. > > > > Which Eastern culture moved beyond it? > > > > On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:58 AM, X Acto wrote: > >> Trouble is Bodvars SOL did'nt recognize it as a western cultural development >> it was asserted as the evolutional development of the human race. >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 8:02:55 AM >> Subject: Re: [MD] Able to change well. >> >> While thinking about Ability to change well, and the static and dynamic >> functions, i suddenly asked, Is the moq Archetypal? >> >> >> This immediately highlighted the antimonies of classic, romantic, static, >> dynamic. >> >> >> Jung thinks a division between the psychic realm and that of pure emotion >> lead > > > >> to intellectual development. >> And this reminded me of Bodvar Skutvik's SOL. >> >> >> Once humans began to regard people as either material, psychic or spiritual, >> the >> >> psychic and spiritual viewed matter as an opposite. >> This division is the basis of our cultural development it would seem. >> >> >> If you truly believe that Quality invented this division, then it is >> understandable why Bodvar regards it as Quality's intellect. >> This is reinforced by a diagram in Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance >> which does not further subdivide the romantic, for that experience is a >> unity >> of >> >> emotions. >> >> >> Yes, emotions change, but that observation is reflective. >> >> >> ------------------- >> >> >> The moq employs different antimonies. These are closer to the material, >> psychic >> >> >> >> and spiritual. >> (Jung thinks that psychic is an indeterminate centre between material and >> spiritual, at least at this very early stage). >> This reminds me of Maxwell's sweet spot or Dynamic coherence idea. >> And so this is Archetypal too. >> >> >> ------------------- >> >> >> Quality and Dynamic Quality are antimonies in this sense: Quality is a >> source >> and Dynamic Quality is a teleology. >> They are intellectual discriminations derived from past, future, while >> reserving >> >> an insistence that Quality is a unity of immediate experience. >> >> >> ------------------- >> >> >> It seems to me that Jung ties all this together quite well. >> But i am not expecting universal agreement. >> >> >> One more note, in Subjects, Objects, Data and Values, the four static levels >> are >> >> divided in the object and the subject. >> This works well for extroverts, but introverts may be more inclined to view >> social patterns as alien. >> And so for introverts, symbolic manipulation of the moq intellect is the >> only >> subject. >> This view again supports Bodvar's assertions it seems to me. >> >> >> Thank you >> Ade >> 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 > > > > ___ > > > 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 > > > > > 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 ___ 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
