Hi Mark, Two small issues. First I DO agree one can usefully think of the first two levels as equivalent to the individual, as associated with an individual body. But to me a Cartesian entity, is a mind centered entity. For Descarte it was "I think, therefore I am" not "I walk, therefore I am." But putting ALL this behind, I think to know interconnectedness is the important experience, and seems difficult to accept.
Thanks, Marsha On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:05 AM, 118 wrote: > Hi Marsha and anyone else interested in my opinion (which I know > leaves a few avatars out), > > I have been reading through these posts, which are fast and furious, > and thought I would respond to what is being called the Cartesian Me. > Perhaps this will clear up some of the confusion which seems to be > propagated. My exposition will be based on the distinct levels that > are used to help describe Quality. > > The Cartesian Me does exist within the Societal Level, it has to. It > is what makes up the societal level, and what the societal level > influences. It is not an illusion. This is not hard to see. As a > single sensing being, we cannot find a location for what we term the > "I". We never will be able to, since it does not exist at this level. > As a group, we can define and use the individual "I" without any > problem whatsoever. > > Where the difficulty seems to come up is in discussions which > mistakenly perform a mixing of levels. It seems that some conflate > the individual consciousness level with structures within the Societal > level, and this nullifies the distinction between the levels. It is > like ascribing aspects of fire to those of water. There are many > qualitative differences between the two. > > Therefore, the acceptance of levels provides a very easy solution to > what seems to be circular arguments without resolution. At the > societal level the self exists, but not at the individual level. In > the same way, the atom does not exist at the inorganic level, whereas > it does in the intellectual level. Species do not exist at the > biological level, but do at the societal and intellectual levels. I > hope this is not getting to unclear for readers. > > If we agree that the levels are useful, we must use them logically in > a discussion of MoQ. By ascribing attributes of one level to another, > we arrive at encompassing statements that bear no fruit at all. They > are misdirections on the path of MoQ, and easily confuse and deny the > existence of things. > > Finally, I would like to present what I have been reading concerning > the use of the term "illusion". It seems that this word is being used > to represent something that isn't real. However, it is quite clear > that an illusion represents a specific real thing, such as an illusion > of an oasis in the desert. Therefore, illusions are > misinterpretations of very real things. This would be in contrast to > delusions. So when it is said that the self is an illusion, this > would mean that such "self" exists, just not as we think it does. > Otherwise it would not be called an illusion. If we take the premise > of Buddhism that the self does not exist, but arises as a result of > what some fondly call Patterns in this forum, then what exactly are we > pointing to with the concept of self? I certainly know that I exist, > be it as a codependent arising or whatever. The fact that things do > not inherently exist is obvious from chemistry and physics where > everything is made up of something smaller, down to the infinitely > small. > > In the past I have tried to begin discussion on what the levels > symbolize as metaphysical tools. I have suggested repeatedly that the > Intellectual level is not individual intellect. It can't be. The > Societal Level is not a group of individuals, since that is not a > Level. The biological is not a collection of inorganic molecules. > Within one level, the other levels are of mysterious consciousness. > We can look for signs of their existence; any projection of their > attributes must treat them as self perpetuating entities. This does > not mean that one level cannot impinge its quality on another level, > since we are discussing personal opinions through the societal level, > and as a result often opinions are transformed. But, this is a topic > for another time. Levels can be very useful for explaining things if > they are used correctly. > > Cheers, > Mark ___ 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
