[MD] Buddhism's s/o

[MarshaV]

Greetings Dan,

For me,  all that is known is ever-changing, dependent, impermanent 
patterns.   


When I label intellectual patterns as SOM I am describing how they are 
perceived, or how they function in consciousness.  I-spov represent reified
concepts and the rules for their manipulation.  Intellectual patterns create 
false boundaries, giving the illusion of independence, or 'thingness'. I 
understand this fourth level to represent a formalized subject/object 
level where the subjective is supposedly stripped from the experience 
to reveal an objective truth. 


Marsha



On May 2, 2010, at 12:03 AM, Dan Glover wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> My question centers around the nature of belief.  How do we become
>> convinced?  What is necessary to achieve the state of being convinced of
>> anything?  It seems much easier to convince a child of anything than to
>> convince an adult.
>> 
>> Following on this, I think beliefs are some kind of "static pattern of
>> value" we all absorb.  If you become (by whatever means) convinced of
>> proposition A, then later someone tries to persuade you of proposition B,
>> and B is opposed to A so that you can't logically believe both A and B at
>> the same time, I think it will be harder to convince you of B than it would
>> have been had you not previously been convinced of A.
>> 
>> What you believe first has more value to you than what people try to
>> convince you of later.
> 
> Dan:
> Exactly. Even after Robert Pirsig writes two books postulating that
> rather than subjects and objects being primary to intellect, patterns
> of value are primary, many, many people will not believe. You seem
> convinced otherwise. Bo is, too. So's Platt. Marsha? I don't know. I
> think she's starting to see the cracks in Bo's SOL. I guess most
> people are so entrenched in the primacy of subject/object thinking
> that they'll resort to ridiculous lengths to maintain the illusion.
> 
> I am not being mean-spirited when I say Bo's SOM as Quality's
> intellect doesn't make sense in the context of the MOQ. I am stating a
> fact. And if others choose to believe in nonsense I can't stop them.
> No one can. You say you want an example of some "thing" that's not a
> subject or object yet you're convinced subjects and objects are all
> there is. Do you see the problem?
> 
>> Mary:
>> Most - no - all human disagreement arises from differing fundamental
>> beliefs.
> 
> Dan:
> Disagreements drive the evolution of intellect.
> 
>> Mary:
>> Beliefs are static and difficult to overcome - so be careful what you choose
>> to convince your children of.
> 
> Dan:
> Children grow up. If we teach them well, they'll do good. We have to
> trust in that... right?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Dan
> 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


 
___