dear glove:
you say:
there really is a deep
underlying mysticism at work in the universe that is recognizable whenever
reality is penetrated deeply enough.
i say:
i totally agree. it is part of my experience and as such it is true for me.
now with the zombie articles, i validate my own experience. they mean a lot
to me. i cannot understand how people who havent read them can comment on
them.
did you read the letter about the artist comparing the zombie to zen mind?
Lithien
http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/Lila2.html
-----Original Message-----
From: glove <glove@indianvalley.com>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Friday, December 11, 1998 6:42 PM
Subject: MD Brain, Mind and Intellect
>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
>
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