Greetings Mark, On Apr 27, 2011, at 1:09 AM, 118 wrote:
> Hi Marsha, > My opinion is a little different than yours, I will try to explain below. > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:16 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >>> >>> [Mark before] >>> 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] > If you read a biography on Buddha, you will find that Buddha had no > problem with the Gods in Hindu religion. If fact he makes use of them > quite effectively. For example when, after his enlightenment, he was > trying to decide if he should explain it to others even though he felt > there was not way to explain it, Brahman came down and convinced > Buddha to go forth. Can't get any closer to a God than that. This > whole nonsense about it being atheist (as in anti-theist) is complete > nonsense carried forth by those dissatisfied with Christianity. It is > well accepted that Religion and Buddhism can exist perfectly well > together, always has, always will. If you subscribe to Buddhism > because you have a bad attitude towards religion, then that is the > wrong reason (I know you don't by the way, I was speaking generally). Marsha: I enjoy the bait and debate of philosophy, but I have no interest in discussing religion or God/s. >>> Mark previously: >>> 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." >> :-). > > [Mark] > I have no problem playing with the concept of function, except I am > concerned that it may provide misdirection. Let me be clear however, > I do not say that Quality has Intent, I say that Quality IS Intent. > There is a big difference there. In the same way, humans do not have > Intent, they are Intent (or Will, if you want). Again, a big > difference, one that is consistent with MoQ. A car has function, and > DQ is certainly not a car. Marsha: I'm sticking with DQ as "indivisible, undefinable and unknowable". - I do think one should be able to explain how to recognize an intellectual static pattern of value. To assign 'science' as an intellectual pattern explains nothing. 'Science' and 'zero,' are names, not patterns. >> 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 > > [Mark] > Again, by my view, the intellectual level does not HAVE intention, it > IS it. Outside of our description of it, it is dynamic. One function > that we could perhaps ascribe to the levels is Coexistence. That is, > they cannot exist inherently. All have always been in existence and > alway will. We experience the human interpretation. >> >>> [Mark previously] >>> 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. > > [Mark] > I will look up Indra's Net. >> >> >>> 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. > > [Mark] > Yeah, like Bowie Sings in "China Girl": > > I stumble into town just like a sacred cow > Visions of swastikas in my head > Plans for everyone > Its in the white of my eyes > > My little china girl > You shouldnt mess with me > Ill ruin everything you are > Ill give you television > Ill give you eyes of blue > Ill give you men who want to rule the world > > > OH Bowie, Just you shut your mouse, you have gone downhill since 1974. > Pathetic with Let's Dance, Bowie singing BeeGee music. HELP! > > I think the MoQ is attempting an Eastern Interpretation in Western > Clothing. Having said that, the way that Pirsig uses some analogies, > one could certainly come away with some of some kind of domination > theory. Marsha: I was never a David Bowie fan. I prefer Metallica. I named my first cat Metallica, and he is bad... >> 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. >> >> > [Mark] > Like I said I will try. Function denotes purpose. Each level has its > own purpose or consciousness. What these functions are can be > extrapolated from what we see. Perhaps the function of the > Intellectual Level is to provide guidance to our intellects, in the > same way that the Societal level provides guidance to our all living > on this planet. What do you think? Marsha" "providing guidance' sounds like 'intention.' What I mean by function is more about how it behaves: abstracts, isolates, reifies to know and manipulate. Cheerfully, 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
