[MD] Intellect and Religion: Individuals and Society

[markhsmit]

Hi Bo,
Yes, I know where you are coming from.  My view
is a little more down to earth.  I am not seeking to redefine
the meanings of static, so be kind with my provincial posts.
I think it is great that you feel that intellect has broken
free of its source.  I think you will find in the long run
that what you propose is religion, by definition.  It is
one of many, but good luck with your journey, there is
nothing wrong with that.  By the way, by my reckoning
science is also a religion, but I know that I will have
a hard time convincing others of that.  I have been
practicing science for many many years so I have
a good handle on it (I believe).
Cheers,
Mark
 
On Feb 14, 2010, at 7:50:30 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:
From:   skutvik at online.no
Subject:    Re: [MD] Intellect and Religion: Individuals and Society
Date:   February 14, 2010 7:50:30 AM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Mark and John

13 Feb. Mark wrote to John

> No doubt about it that religion is static.  It changes names when it
> changes.  I also find intellect to be caught in static patterns.  A
> good idea will catch hold and dominate for a while until a new idea
> comes about.  This is true in science.

You and John make many strange statements, the result of the one-
eyed leading the blind I guess ;-). The hitherto weirdest is ".. I also 
find intellect to be caught in static patterns". Intellect is a static level 
so no wonder. However it has undergone a metamorphosis, before it 
was SOM and one idea became so unstable that it "took off on a 
purpose of its own" to become the MOQ which in turn re-shaped SOM 
to become its own 4th static level. From then on "intellect" does not 
mean a mental realm where ideas reside, rather the value of the S/O 
distinction of which sinence is the best. But don't expect intellect or 
sience to get "religious ideas" if that is what you mean. 

> It seems to me that for intellect to jump to new ideas, there has to
> be a dynamic interplay with the non-intellect.  It is this submersion
> for a while followed by rebirth that makes intellect dynamic.  It is
> quite possible, that what is occurring beneath the surface (so to
> speak) is the driving force behind intellect.  The resulting
> intellectual description is a result of non-intellectual phenomenon.
>  It serves to place a stake in the ground, influence the thinking of
> others, spread and mature.

The non-intellectual driving force has long ago (least 50 years when 
RMP had his epiphany) created THE intellectual pattern so dynamic 
that it could not be contained by its parents and it "left home" but 
this group seems hell bent on hauling the "prodigy child" back into the 
fold. That is of course impossible but it will probably delay its "coming 
of age" for an infinite time. It can't be helped

> Possibly intellect springs from Quality, it attaches itself, and
> Quality sends out a new shoot to climb up the wall of knowledge.  I
> have no idea where my discoveries come from, all I know is that they
> jumps from one idea to the next without much in between.

I'm not sure what all this means, you seem as volatile as Andre the 
Flying Dutchman who had an Eureka moment every other week but 
each time fell lame to the ground.

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/