[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[gav]

hey ham, marsha

--- Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>> My mistake, then, for presuming a mind and body. 
(I
> now remember
> omeone  --probably Mark -- reminding me that the
> individual has to be
> "deduced" all over again with each value
> experience.)   I guess Mr. Prisig
> has made the common association of mind and body
> with Creation obsolete.  It
> would seem to me that having a functional mind and
> body is prerequisite for
> having an experience.  But at least we agree that
> Value is pre-intellectual.

no a body and mind are not required for experience,
since things without a body or mind still experience
(ie exhibit reaction to stimuli, intelligence); and
what of dreaming?

we are living in a consensual dream; essentially an
illusion. our minds and bodies are part of this
illusion. experience or consciousness or awareness or
Mind: this is the ground that allows anything to
exist, including of course mind and body. *nothing
exists independently of perception of it*: if a tree
falls in the forest......

yeah i know it sounds weird ham-the MOQ is a RADICAL
philosophy: it goes right to the roots man.

 this is the biggest stumbling block of all. this is
SOM hanging on - refusing to budge. it is also why the
MOQ is so powerful: once you begin to absorb this way
of seeing reality...well it sure beats SOM!
*everything* changes, gains significance, meaning.
irresolvable dilemmas (under SOM) dissolve; the ego
becomes less and less solid; alienation gives way to
integration; the world is re-enchanted.

i cannot overstate the value of this change of
perspective, because all our woes, personal and global
are ultimately due to faulty 'vision'. the MOQ is a
shit-hot pair of specs!





		
____________________________________________________ 
On Yahoo!7
Check back weekly for  Trixi's new online adventures 
http://www.trixi.com.au