[MD] Reading & Comprehension

Sun May 2 01:47:47 PDT 2010

Mary, All

1 May. you said to 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.  

You don't invoke my wrath, least not with "the MOQ is also SOM" if 
treated with care. Any level (and the MOQ has a level-like relationship 
with intellect-as-SOM) has a difficult period of not being fully on its own 
and not liking its dependency of his parent and this is what the MOQ 
undergoes now and possibly will for a long time. 

A few days ago I said regarding Annotation 133 (that the 
fundamentalists believe says that Pirsig says that the SOL undermines 
the MOQ) how objectively i.e. somishly P. of ZAMM went about 
presenting his Quality idea. Had he said that it had been delivered by 
an angel or found it written on a wall in fiery letters (like the social level 
messages were) it would not have stood the snowball's chance in hell, 
he would have been locked up for ever. 

But it tears at its intellectual - SOM - chains and will eventually tear 
loose. Maybe us Q-liberals want this to happen right away and it's 
premature, but at least that's the big picture. 

> 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). 

Damn right, after SOM after intellect things MUST be explained that 
way. Though I wouldn't say "our feeble intellect", our mighty 
intelligence is now in the intellectual level's service and it will be a 
tough job for DQ to switch it onto the MOQ mode, but it's relentless 
and will succeed eventually, thanks to you Mary, Marsha and Platt. I 
have long since become the Bogey-man.

> 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.

Likewise, however SOL is the interpretation, we are immersed in SOM 
or better, intellect-as-SOM

Bodvar

> 
> 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:WLMT
> > AGL :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
> 
> 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
> 
> 