On Apr 25, 2011, at 8:14 PM, 118 wrote:
> 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.
Marsha:
Human beings can justify anything, so I suppose a Christian can
ignore Buddhism being atheistic.
> Mark:
> 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.
Marsha:
I would like to hear what you might say about the function of the fourth
level. Intent might be too varied, ("I'd like to work for world peace." :-).
>> '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.
Marsha:
Can the intellectual level's intention be to know? Can the intellectual
level even have an 'intention?' Seems to me it would be best to determine
how this level functions. I know it very simplistic, but I see the levels as
to exist => to multiply => to flourish => to know
>> 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?
No, I do not know of the Kabalism. I do think Indra's Net seems a
very good way of understanding how events happen.
> The hierarchical can be confusing sometimes, but I do believe it
> provides understanding if seen in a good way.
Don't you like the evolutionary part? I think the MoQ's structure is an
ingenious Western path. Isn't the West's "intention" to become
king of the mountain. I suppose maybe that would be China's
intention too; they seem to be devout materialists also.
I would like to hear what you might have to say about the function
of the Intellectual level. I am pretty comfortable with my definition. Since
I cannot discuss it, the best I can hope for is to hear other ideas of what
makes it unique. Maybe you have a better way of explaining it.
Marsha
___
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
