Hi Marsha, On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:07 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Mark, > > I agree that the Intellectual Level is not a group of intellects; it's not > just > thinking and not just a collection of thoughts. Though static quality has > an interdependence with consciousness as it represents what can be > conceptualized. - I tend to see the categorization into a level as based > on function.
[Mark] I think the question is, what is the best way to explain the levels so that they can be useful and meaningful? What will bring in others from the disparate arena of beliefs. As you know, Buddhism can be practiced by Christians without much loss and the other way around. Many of the Christian mystics were similar to the last major Buddha. I have considered the function analogy. We could also call it Intent which may be more dynamic. Of course we do not need to specify intent towards what since that can be many things. In previous posts I have also brought up the analogy of consciousness of the levels. In this way we can relate it to human consciousness. > 'Groups of people' is an interesting phrase, sort of a way around the > self-ego problem. Still, even without the negative ego connotation, > the term 'person' within the 'group of people', or individual, is a static > pattern of value, an useful illusion. There are no such thing as a > 'simple human' so I agree they are not the sole source of intellectual > patterns, or any kind static patterns. [Mark] Well, "people" was unintentional, I really meant groups of egos, but maybe what I posted subconsciously was better. I believe the concept of ego can also be positive, since it provides us so much, but I know what you mean, egotism. I did not mean simple in a derogatory sense (if fact most Taoists seek simplicity), but just to point out that each one of us is an atom in a swirling world. These swirling atoms make up the social level. That is, the social level provides the form by which we interact, much in the same way that a river bank forms the river (and the other way around of course). The Intellectual Level forms our intellectual patterns more than the other way around. > > No matter how much I admire the MoQ's evolutionary, hierarchical level- > structure of patterned quality, I prefer the net-of-jewels model. It may not > suit the Western point-of-view (whatever that might be), but it suits me. > [Mark] Have you checked the Tree of Sapphires, Kabalism? The hierarchical can be confusing sometimes, but I do believe it provides understanding if seen in a good way. 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
