[MD] The intellectual pattern of truth

[X Acto]

Ron

Goodness knows why I bother with you and your endless objections 
and questions that - regardless of how many times I explain - you 
repeat in some new form.

Bodvar,
 goodness know you have not explained a thing yet, 
I do have my hopes.
  
Bodvar 20 June:

I had said that I don't seek any self-help manual, but an convincing 
explanation of existence

Ron:
I merely stated that you are not even forwarding a relevent assertion
that you maintain that any explaination especially the highest quality
explaination, is S/O.

Bo prev:
> > Improve lives sounds very NewAgeish. With me a convincing explanation of
> > existence goes a long way, and with the MOQ I found such an explanation
> > for the first time. 

Ron:
> But you render that explaination an s/o explaination, as any
> intellectual explaination. 

Bodvar:
If writing is "intellectual" how can anything conveyed by language be 
non-intellectual? The 4th. static level is S/O, there you are right for 
once - possibly inadvertently  - but it has nothing specially  to do with  
language or thinking or what SOM calls "mental".  

Ron:
I said explainations are intellectual not writing. Not going to wriggle out of it
that easy, according to you all explaintions are S/O since S/O is the
intellectual level, according to you.How could explainations be anything else?
especially an explaination that convinced an objective geniuse like yourself.
It had to be logical and objective, you'd accept nothing less. A logical
objective explaination.

> This really doesent change anything then. The old explaination is just
> as convincing, even more so since you yourself claim that it is the
> highest static pattern. 

Bodvar:
It's hard to reach you. The old explanation was SOM i.e. the S/O 
schism as IT REALLY IS, meaning that the distance between 
ourselves as subject and objective reality wasn't just great, it was 
UNBRIDGEABLE, two universes. Whatever philosophy, theory or 
explanation there existed or would come to be would be "in here", the 
real world "out there" would be as indifferent and unaffected as it - still 
according to SOM - had been from eternity and would remain to 
eternity. 

Ron:
Yesyou keep saying that any explaination IS an S/O explaination
it cant be anything else.       

Bodvar:
Then this mysterious Robert Pirsig who said that SOM was a "fall-out" 
of a greater reality and further pointed to its time of falling out, namely  
with the Greeks. This was my "Road to Damascus" experience, finally 
was the Mind/Matter spell broken and all those philosophers whose 
books I had browsed without finding this so obvious and convincing 
solution, they  were at once midgets compared to Pirsig.

Ron:
Exactly how did it convince you, there is no objective evidence, sounds like a bunch
of new age gibberish, higher reality, mystic,  subjective, mumbo jumbo. Stuff you
don't care for at all. There is no logical empirical evidence or support for this claim.
"road to damascus" religouse social feel-good rubbish per your interpretation,
MoQ emerges from the highest static good, objective S/O truth. Religious
epiphanies are hardly a meaningful objective explaination.

Ron:
LILA and it partly abolishing the one and only SOLution I won't go into 
here 

Ron:
Right because, you can't.. I understand.  

> SOL allows only ONE explaination, the objective one. 

Bodvar explains?
SOL is the assertion that intellect is the subject/object distinction, this 
so for the reason that that was Phaedrus' (of ZAMM) breathtaking 
assertion. Regarding the MOQ it had to use SOM's own objective 
strength (with which it had broken the social level's power) to make it 
out of SOM and - after that - make both objective and subjective (the 
distinction that is!!!!) into its own static intellectual level. 

Ron:
So reality used it's own objective strength to make it (what?) out
of it's own intellectual level.  ok..
but that is not how you were convinced you admitted having a religous epiphany
as if DQ revealed itself to you and only you through your S/O antenne.
Is THAT a objective reasonable explaination? I would'nt think so.

Bodvar explains this time?
It's an elegant, 
seamless "inside out turn of the metaphysical sock". But you bugs who 
never felt uncomfortable inside SOM's confinement - never knew it as 
confinement - will of course bemoan the whole operation.   

Ron:
Us bugs just don't believe anything we're told.
I'll ask again, why should we believe you?
What does the SOL offer if it doesent offer anything to any of
the levels? 

Bodvar:
Please read before throwing yourself at the keyboard.

Ron:
We only have your own opinion that there is a deeper physical reality.
Can you offer anything more as an explaination. Telling me to read
Pirsig when you yourself claim that Pirsig doesent understand, is rather 
useless if I'm going to understand the worth of the SOL.
How and why is it better than objective reality explaining everything
including the subjective experience? is'nt that what SOL is doing?



Please think before you lean against the keyoard






















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