[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Mary]

Hi DMB,

This debate is about big picture vs little picture.  That's all.  

In the big picture the anti-SOM philosophies you mention are based on SOM
propositions.  All the way down.  That's the point.  I probably will invoke
Bo's wrath with this, but my view is that the MoQ is also SOM.  It is a SOM
way of explaining that which would be otherwise unexplainable - DQ.  DQ is
not SOM.  DQ cannot be named, categorized, visualized, or understood by our
feeble intellect because our feeble intellect is based on SOL and has been
since the biological level (along with every other species you may ascribe
an "intellect" to).

We are so completely immersed in SOL that we fail to realize that the
metaphysi we construct are all SOM.  Until we evolve further, we will be
unable to truly see this.  All we can do for now is allude to it.  In the
normal course of daily life we cannot transcend SOL.  It is impossible.  We
are not built for that.  We are SOL animals.

Mary

- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org [mailto:moq_discuss-
> bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of david buchanan
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:33 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Reading & Comprehension
> 
> 
> Andre said to Bo:
> Your objection to the MOQ not being a static intellectual pattern of
> value makes no sense at all. Your dismissal of 'thinking', your
> dismissal of  'feelings' as all being indications of a SOM Mind Reality
> are plain silly. ... Your dismissal of the intellectual level as not
> containing any thoughts, concepts , symbols etc ( after all this is
> SOM!) seems based on this notion that you have placed the MOQ outside
> of the intellectual level. ...
> 
> 
> 
> dmb adds:
> 
> "As William James, the father of American psychology, said a century
> ago, consciousness is not a thing but a process." (Francis Crick, co-
> discoverer of the DNA helix)
> 
> Bo is suffering from a whole series of major misconceptions, but this
> idea that the mind can only ever be the Cartesian subjective mind (SOM)
> is definitely one of his biggest errors. I've already presented lots of
> evidence that thinkers use their minds to dispute SOM. I guess Bo can
> somehow believe that anti-SOM thinking is SOM thinking because that's
> the only kind there is, even though that exactly what the anti-SOM
> thinkers are denying.
> 
> I mean, if all intellects and all intellectual thoughts are SOM it
> would not be possible to think anti-SOM thoughts. The existence of so
> many anti-SOM thinkers proves that SOM cannot be equal to mind or
> intellect. It's a logical absurdity.
> 
> Insulting the other guy's intelligence does not constitute an argument,
> of course, but this really is just too stupid. How are the supporters
> of Bo's theory NOT embarrassed by this repeated dismissal of logic and
> evidence? I think it's downright contemptible to perpetrate or defend
> such obvious nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your
> inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL
> :ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
> 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