[MD] The intellectual pattern of truth

[Horse]

Bo
You've complained in the past about others not answering your questions 
so why don't you answer Ron's questions?
Or perhaps you're not capable of doing so coherently and rely on others, 
such as Platt and Mary, to make your arguments for you.
A very poor show.

Horse


On 23/06/2010 04:09, X Acto wrote:
> Bodvar,
> It would be nice if you simply answered the questions.
>
> Conceding defeat to avoid the discussion ,,,
>
> claiming "sainthood"
>
> Is this the greater explainitory power?
>
> get lost?
>
> nice
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "skutvik at online.no"<skutvik at online.no>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Tue, June 22, 2010 10:50:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The intellectual pattern of truth
>
> Hi Ron
> In all friendliness get lost. I have no intention in getting involved in your
> tactics of attrition. If you think you have won be my guest. There are
> limits even to "saints".
>
> Bodvar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 21 Jun 2010 at 21:50, X Acto wrote:
>
>    
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>      
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>    

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa