[MD] Intellect and Religion: Individuals and S

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Mark

14 Feb. u wrote:

> 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. ......

Don't take my Jesuitic tone personally but if you had the faintest idea 
where I came from you would also understand the MOQ and not write 
all this nonsense. Intellect (the static level) has not broken free, but the 
MOQ has broken free from SOM which - in retrospect - becomes the 
intellectual level, whose static value is the residual S/O distinction.   

> ...... 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.

Well, THIS is not the worst of your observations. If Buddhism is 
regarded a religion the MOQ may well be because it is a more clear 
and edible (to the Western mind) "buddhism".   

>  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 

I agree to a certain extent. SOM (science its foremost pattern) can be 
regarded a religion in the sense of all Q-levels can be (in a most 
extended sense) but SOM's - or the intellectual level's - purpose is to 
control social value and social value's foremost patterns were/are 
religions (of the Semitic types: Jewdom, O.T.Christendom and all their 
countless sects) consequently science is not a religion of THAT kind, 
but surely a belief in itself being ultimate reality . Don't think I don't 
understand your many  good but half-MOQ-baked ideas.       

Bodvar