Hi Marsha, Equivalency is hard to assume between levels. Fire is not equivalent to water. The inorganic level and the one above (whatever you want to call it) are separate levels. The cells of your body are not equivalent to your mind in any way. This is where the confusion comes in. Levels were meant to provide a meaningful division of Quality, and I do not see the meaning in what your posted. Sometimes I am slow, so indulge me.
The Taoist saying would be "I am therefore I think and walk". This also makes much more sense in the MoQ format. It is a completely different approach from the Western format. There is a mind centered entity, Buddha speaks of such a thing, and it is not difficult to find. That it is interconnected does not detract from it, but simply provides it with more awareness. Buddha was caught up in change, that is, we are changing at every moment, and as such we do not have inherent existence. This seems to be difficult for some, because then the question arises "then what am I?". This is a false question without meaning. In the same way, this "what" is what MoQ tries to dispel by providing a conceptual framework for subject object metaphysics. Even labeling something as software is misleading, although it can provide direction if it is not taken literally. Acceptance is a difficult subject. Even Gotama did not accept his condition which led to lots of mindful awareness along with strict yoga discipline. One can certainly accept that one should not accept, which then becomes a logical conundrum. Acceptance can only come through self-realization, which is what MoQ is all about. One can look at all the signs provided, but the path is a personal one. Dogma is useful, but is not a final answer. I have come to a point where all the Pirsig literature has been incorporated and provided me with trajectory so that I can leave it behind. Buddha likens his teaching to a raft. Once one crosses the river, he/she does not carry the raft with, but leaves it behind. Where MoQ leads has not yet been written in my personal legend. Cheers, Mark On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:26 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > 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
