[MD] Metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

Mark, Andre, All

10 Jan. :

Andre before:
> > When I read this, something dawned on me but couldn?t give it
> > expression until I lay, quietly on my electric blanket (it is fucking
> > freezing here!). Then it came to me...the passage in ZMM (I think) where
> > Phaedrus has a conversation with a priest and they are talking about the
> > liturgy, the most sacred part: when the wine changes into blood, and the
> > bread changes into the body of Christ. Phaedrus asks along the lines of;
> > (sorry I do not have a copy of ZMM with me) yes, but this is
> > symbolically..yeS??. No! says the priest, this is real. At that moment,
> > the wine and bread change into the actual blood and body of Jesus
> > Christ! Christians all over the world actually and factually believe
> > that this is indeed the case. And, further more, the Bible is of course
> > seen, not as a book full of stories ( if I may take the liberty, as a
> > book full of fingers pointing to the moon!!) but as the actual word of
> > God.
 
[Mark]: In response to Andre. 
> So Andre, you believe that it is not the word of God.  Let me remind
> you that that is a belief too, no more or less than to believe it is.

Andre will possibly answer this himself, but Mark, jog your grey mass, 
don't you understand that Andre uses this example - of believers' 
attitude to their faith - to demonstrate how the MOQ must be 
approached if it is to liberate itself from the tentacles of SOM. Not that 
the religious attitude is identical to its own. Wait and see.   

> However, your posts sounds rather righteous, as if you believe that
> your belief is correct.  

Of course it sounds righteous, that's the great sin according to - say - 
Steve who wants the MOQ to be just another "intellectual pattern" - 
maybe at the top yet  - inside his intellect which is SOM's mind in a 
disguise that only can fool a fool.   

> How did you get to this higher level? How is it that your belief 
> somehow is more right than, say, a Christian's?  

Andre just tells how he reached his insight in this post. It is as difficult 
as life's first foray out of matter, i.e. impossible had it not been for - 
well - Dynamic Quality.

> In fact your belief is so blind, that you think that it is somehow
> outside the system of beliefs, somehow the right way to believe.  Once
> you realize the relative nature of beliefs, that is, that they are just
> opinions, you may see a little more. 

What you talk about Mark is intellect's attitude towards social value 
(where the ordinary religious believers reside) and in its time this 
intellectual attitude  emergence out of society was just a improbable as 
life's out of matter (and society's out of biology just to complete it) If 
you apply this "relative system of belief" to the latter-day social 
dwellers - the muslims - you will not make any headway, this is what 
they  e will sacrifice their lives to prevent their holy reality.    

> So, yes, the wine is the blood of Christ to those that believe it, and
> it is not to those who believe otherwise. There is no right or wrong,
> unless you believe you are God. But of course if your system of belief
> is that there isn't one, then you are something else that is all
> knowing, or not.  There is a God and there isn't a God, both are
> correct.  No need to take sides. 

Now, the MOQ is no return to "social fanatism", it regards the 
intellectual level to be its highest and best static value, yet regarding 
itself it MUST be approached with "fundamentalism" because there is 
no other way - it's all or nothing at all. As another intellectual level 
SOM prevails unscathed. With SOM safely domesticate AS ITS OWN 
INTELLECTUAL LEVEL the MOQ rules. Between these two states 
there is no intermediates, it's like Phenomenology's figure: Two white 
profiles or one black vase. Either you see one or you see the other. 

There is more to it but this far...

Get it?

Bodvar