On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:19 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greetings Mark, > [Snip] > > Marsha: > I enjoy the bait and debate of philosophy, but I have no interest in > discussing religion or God/s.
[Mark] No that wasn't my intention. I have not wish to sidestep into that area. Many people arrive at this forum with some very heavy baggage about religion. My intent was to provide my understanding of how Buddhism does not conflict with religion, never has. You can also possible appreciate my desire not to close doors to others. By being anti-something, we do not provide the proper explanation of MoQ. Yeah, I know "PIRSIG SAID..." Often when we are caught up in debate in the heat of the moment, and people are trying to equate MoQ with a religion, we can say things that we later regret. Yet, since we have said them, we then get all caught up in trying to support them, rather than just saying: "that is not what I was trying to say". There is nothing special about MoQ, it is all common sense. As soon as one dismissing all those people who believe in a God of some kind, all we are left with are a bunch of intellectual drones. Not fun, not fun at all. > > 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. > [Mark] OK > > > Marsha" > "providing guidance' sounds like 'intention.' What I mean by function is > more about how it behaves: abstracts, isolates, reifies to know and > manipulate. [Mark] Yeah, that is why I have difficulty ascribing function to DQ. We can certainly see how the intellectual level behaves in hind-sight. I don't think that level abstracts, it is abstraction. How about if we analogize the intellectual level to a movie on the screen. This process has several parts. The movie (in days of old) is on a film which has light passed through it, the light carries the information and hits a screen where what was once light is now broken up into all sorts of static patterns. Which part do you think could be the intellectual level? > > Best, 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
