dmb, I use my intellect all the time. I like to. It's fun. So what?
For me the MoQ designates Reality = Quality. Quality, for me, is experienced as unpatterned and patterned. - All the "talking" about the MoQ and Quality are a second-hand intellectualizing and NOT the first-hand knowing/experience of either. What's not to get? You want to think meditation is clap-trap, then don't excited with me that you do not understand. You are really funny. Here try this: Not this Not -this Not (this and -this) Not (neither this nor -this) Marsha On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:09 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha: > > You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see the > problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to miss, even > for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it merely insulting. > It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have responded with a > childish evasion. > > Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a particular kind > of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of philosophy, then how > can the whole intellectual level be defined as "a formalized subject/object > level (SOM)"? > > How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's like defining > "food" as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. > > > And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the first > place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just the > ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations and the > like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's not to > understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use to read > and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just thinking. Marsha's > definition is too complicated by about 2000%. > > That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, I > characterized your reasoning as "spectacularly bad" and "spectacularly > stupid" but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise > explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child could have > understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual substance of > it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. Insult and evade, > insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, is there? You are > literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence mean absolutely > nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you can cling to such a > conspicuously contradictory construction without embarrassment. > > > Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d. > > Therefore: > > Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part of d in > recent historic times? > > C'mon. Anyone can see how spectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? It's > not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with it is very > clear, no? > > > > > > > > > > > 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
