Hi Bodvar and everyone
Bodvar wrote:
He does, and you are entitled to point that out to me. I repeat my
standard answer that IMHO it was him desperately trying to make a
bridge from SOM to the MOQ, but that connection must be reinforced
and in that process his first rickety construction may be
"encapsuled". I am proud of my idea that the Q-Intellect IS
subject-objectivism itself. It is such an inassailable idea as you
will see.
Glove wrote:
Bodvar, we are all allowed a little pride for the ideas and connections we
uncover and i feel that perhaps i have not understood your Q-intellect as
subject/objectivism as well as i might. all too often when i see the acronym
SOM i mistake it for subject/object thinking. its too easy to mix the two
inadvertantly.
Bodvar wrote;
Please disregard that glib formulation of mine. The MOQ is a
liberation from subject-object METAPHYSICS, but not from S-O "logic"
(or "reason") as Q-Intellect!!!!. Don't you see the enormous
difference; SOM means that the S-O split is fundamental AS IT IS!
while S-O as Q-Intellect means that we can keep it as an useful tool
The most powerful, but "disarmed" safely as part of the static
hierarchy. This difference you will hopefully acknowledge, because
if you......
Glove wrote:
yes yes yes! i do see the difference indeed and you will have to forgive my
inappropriate mixing of Subject/Object Metaphysics and subject/object
thinking or logic. actually i would prefer that SOM was completely dropped
from the Lila Squad as a symbol as it is very confusing even to us that have
been here for a while. but i doubt that will happen so i will watch my
wording more carefully in the future. thank you for pointing it out to me.
Bodvar wrote:
At the metaphysical plane we are all "mystics", but - to me - the
MOQ makes sense of experience without the paradoxes that SOM
forces us to despair over or circumvent. I don't scoff at Sheldrake,
only point out that he is no MOQist and as such has to invoke
"mystical" forces to his theory..
Glove wrote:
this is true, but no matter what deep explanatory metaphysical base is used
to discuss reality, it seems that a point comes where the mystical forces of
the universe must be brought into the equation. David Bohm, Rupert
Sheldrake, Albert Einstein...i could go on and on...all must resort to
mysticism at some point to explain the origins of reality and reality itself
whether they really wish to or not. that must mean that either a) we simply
do not understand the reality we inhabit, or b) there really is a deep
underlying mysticism at work in the universe that is recognizable whenever
reality is penetrated deeply enough.
thanks for your time in answering my reply.
best wishes,
glove
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:43 BST