[MD] my question

[John Carl]

Hi Marsha,

It's an interesting distinction between feeling and functionality.  I never
thought of them in terms of each other till I found the idea in ZAMM.  That
when I FEEL I've got the rotisserie right, then I do.  A feeling that comes
from a fully functioning worldview and that feeling is all the functionality
anybody needs or can get.

But I sense you're seeking something more.  Another way of putting it is
you'd like some good reasons, besides feeling, why the definition of SOM
should or should not be the intellectual level.

I think good feeling has to have good reason, or the whole thing falls
apart.

Marsha:
>


> My question wasn't about who gets to FEEL better because they are
> proven right, it was a question about functionality.  I do not see how the
> intellectual level being SOM, or not, matters functionally to whether or
> not
> one lives a better life?   To me, RMP is not teaching a dogma, but is
> demonstrating value awareness and suggesting that this awareness
> improves living.   If the Intellectual Level being SOM can be detrimental
> to living a better life, please tell me how?
>

Well, there are a few issues to disentangle.  Like what does better mean?
 Intellectual satisfaction seems to be a goal that many intellectuals
pursue, independent of any normal measure of betterness of social
recognition in terms of money or fame.  I expand the "intellectual" beyond
the normal boundaries of intellect to include music and art, and there are
millions in history and today pursuing visions of this higher order quality,
even though there's no reasonable way to say their pursuits and achievments
award them with any sort of "better" , except their feelings on the matter.

And now, the professor will expound:

You see.  Peace of mind really is the whole thing,

Now, to anticipate your next question.  How does the idea of SOM being the
intellectual level, diminish our peace of mind?

I'll fire 'em off as fast as I can think of them

1)  it seems to me to absolutize the intellectual level, a very narrow way
of thinking.

2)  It diminishes art and higher math's intuitive side - music, and their
role in human thought and evolution.

3)  It lacks true intellectual rigor - it's an idea unacceptable to some of
the best minds on this forum, and imo, the author himself.  Thus its a
disharmonizing idea.

4)  It seems ridiculous to suddenly cast your story's villain in the role of
hero.  The 4th level is the apex of evolutionary development, cannot be SOM,
the bug-a-boo ghost of reason thrashed thoroughly in ZAMM.

5)  I can't think of a single reason, why viewing it Bo's way, would be
better or more cohesive.





> Thanks for responding John.
>


Always a pleasure, Marsha.