Hi Mark,
> > Hope your team won. Interesting that you would resort to the biological > programming as if that notion answers all. I'm not sure of my "resorting to biological programming". Much of the time, I take issue with the way Moq'ers construe physical contests. I see these as socially oriented, social programming. The biological part is as meaningful as the inorganic part - which is not at all. The control and creativity and impetus comes from social urges to dominate. > Who is the programmer? By my > interpretation, we only have will as the beginning (or intent if you wish). > There is no I, no other, yet we are still present. Ok, now I'm really confused how "we can be present" when there is no self. > The I develops first, > and at that time there is only I, no other. Then comes I and other. I without other is the same as nothingness. I can only arise when there is other to define. > It is > possible to train the mind to revert back to either only I, or only other > (what do you think these mystical experiences are all about?) But, we can > disagree about this. > > It appears we do. > Now, if you think that fitting something into a box with the intellect > makes > it more complicated, then perhaps you are discussing the intellect only. > But is trying to fit the universe into an equation making it more > complicated or simpler? Well, since we're trying to fit an understanding of the universe into a different understanding of the universe, it can get tricky. And truthfully, I think I can understand how looking at it from a certain perspective, it's certainly true that intellectual formulation is simplification. > Is simplifying your awareness into psychological > behaviors making it more complicated? Is reducing the day to only that > which you think about making it more complicated? We need to simplify to > survive. Our brains are geared towards focusing on one thought for the > same > reason. That of course is just my opinion, but I can think of millions of > ways we try to simplify to understand with only the intellect. > You know, we "intend" to accomplish a simplification with our intellectual prowess, but since intellectual meddling is meddling on a "whole 'nother level" we can really mess things up with intellect. I mean, really messy. So there's that danger. Messing with tools and powers who's effects we don't understand or can't control. Often in our experience,our simplification is getting downright complicated. And I think it happens partially at least, based on the reason, that men compete in the social order, intellectually. They just seemed honed that way, driven to compete using the highest-level tools they can, and the man with the best one wins, right? But ultimately it is social level patterns that are being served. This is where the MoQ is extremely helpful, for it takes intellectual goals away from social ideals, and places them upon transcendant values - ultimate betterness - as the only proper goal for intellectual patterns. All else is idolatry, immorality and shame. > When you define "intellect as romantic and classical patterns in a blend - > art that > makes sense (meaning) and science that is not ugly (serves artistic > purpose)", isn't that a simplification? Yes... I see what you mean. It's like a big problem in math, when written out on a board, is reduced to one little line or just these variables, all that writing has been simplified; In math, Simplification is the answer. the envelopement of an entire logical formulation into extreme shorthand, is an immensely value-able, intellectual accomplishment and tool, right? This is why we say things like, "the moq says this, or the moq says that" because such a shorthand way of describing an entire metaphysical system, in just three characters, is a simplification, making it easier to think about, thinking about. However, arguments arising from exactly what that simplification is, means and looks like, get very complicated indeed. So... take your pick in labeling which it does, simplify or complicate. Just be consistent and you can tack your own direction. > Perhaps not for you. But what > about the stuff you see out of the corner of your eye? > > There's a lot of it, for sure. An infinite panoply of objects to see, and only one lil' ol' focus at a time. Try to use it well, is all I guess I can say. > Yes, I agree, current intent is original intent, I tried to say the > unsuccessfully I guess. Why keep looking when all you have to do is turn > around. It may be that one is looking more at art that is being fabricated > than what creates that art. > > Seriously now, I think there really is something to this encapsulation of the classic by the romantic - transcendant art in charge. At the very top of all human endeavor, ultimately it is beauty that beckons. Truth is just a means to an end. We want satisfaction of, a longing for, something more. at least in my experience :-) Yours, John 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
