[MD] John's Reading of Absolute Idealism Confirmed by Bob

[Ian Glendinning]

Sorry Bo, but I don't really get your point addressed to me ?
You seem to be agreeing in general, just adding thoughts ?

Again however, in a paragraph addressed to me you start criticising
"most of you" for "condemning" the MoQ. I really do not know where you
get this from. I see you condemning Intellect in general, rather than
the m,ore deserving GOF-Intellect.

I say again, I appear to agree with you on just about everything
except the one point where you cannot accept that the MoQ is an
intellectual pattern which itself decribes where and how such
intellectual patterns evolved and evolve in relation to social
patterns. I say therein lies its power, you say I condemn it.

I live in hope that one day you will return to unpicking that logic.

Ian

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:37 PM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Ian, Lu and Group.
>
> 28 July Ian wrote:
>
>> Hi Lu, I can live with that - I have similar metaphors in mind. "God"
>> as the ineffable core of natural processes - Q / DQ as we call it
>> here.
>
> Phaedrus regarded the old Aretê reality as identical to Quality itself. In
> the light of the MOQ this "Greek event" must necessarily be the 4th.
> level emerging from the 3rd. and Phaedrus regarding social value as
> good and the intellectual seems contradictory. However, isn't this what
> most of you do - one notch up - regarding intellect as good (wanting
> the MOQ to be an intellectual pattern) while you condemn the MOQ
> (where intellect is a MOQ level).
>
>> I was actually thinking of those members (like Dave) who see any
>> weakening of defenses against personal omnipotent gods as too
>> dangerous - and pragmatically I can understand that too. (It was Dave
>> who turned the baby / bathwater metaphor against your original point -
>> too neatly dividade ing god and faith for me.)
>
> We seem stuck with "religion" in its mono-theist role (Judaism,
> Christendom and Islam) however the old myths were about creation
> and destruction of the world thus they can be called "religions" (without
> quotation marks) but all these are social patterns according to the
> MOQ.  Now, intellect (science) also presents a  "creation and
> destruction" scheme, but where religions always has some god/gods
> premises, intellect's only premises is that there isn't any personal act
> behind existence.
>
> Lu:
>
>> When I refer to "God", the "Dynamic Quality" that is spoken of here - only
>> as an e...entity in and of itself - best describes my concept.
>
> Hi Lu
> Allow me a lecture. Christendom sprang from Judaism which were the
> last and purest "social myth", and as always at that level the individual
> only has value to the degree it's subservient to "the common cause" -
> in this case Mosaic Law. This social value was what Jesus opposed
> (he had picked up the intellectual signals from the Greeks via the
> Romans) "The Law is for human benefit" he said and this was
> outrageous to the high priests to whom Javeh had issued the law to
> test people's discipline, and it sealed his fate.
>
> Jesus did not appear an outright secular modernist, he spoke in
> traditional terms, and Paul saw to Christendom continuing in this
> Semitic trend for 1500 years, but with the re-birth of the intellectual
> (Greek "spirit") his true intellectual message re-emerged and the rest
> is history. The distance to Semitism widened and now (in North-
> Western Europe at least) we have a Christendom which is heavily
> intellect-influenced, I just hope it will become MOQ-influenced and turn
> into out as some some Western Buddhism.
>
> My point besides flaunting (my) MOQ's view???
>
> Bodvar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>