[MD] An inquirey into "be-ing"

[MarshaV]

Ron,

You're the one making the assumption by thinking YOU know.  

I have presented quotes from many sources suggesting from 
several angles that Eastern cultures suffer from the same dualistic 
self/object  illusion that the West suffers from.  You have ignored 
these suggestions and the supporting quotes.  I have asked you 
for an example of a culture that has transcended dualistic thinking, 
and you have not offered such an example.  

I think that to view the East as a paradise inhabited by millions 
of Buddhas is a illusion.  


Marsha  






On Sep 5, 2010, at 9:20 AM, X Acto wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Sun, September 5, 2010 9:18:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Able to change well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite an assumption to think to know how other
> cultures understand "be-ing"
> 
> This is a very big and important subject of inquirey
> one that is skipped, ignored or missed by undertanding
> one culture as the most evolutionarily advanced and
> its way of understanding and conceptualizing experience.
> 
> Prejudice one would call it, but unless suicide is evolutionarily
> superior in some fashon that I am missing, then it would seem
> "Qualities invention" has failed.
> 
> This has become a huge central theme on the discuss and if we can
> all avoid being sarcastic imp's a fruitful dialog could emerge.
> Check our smug at the door and let us open a thread on the topic.
> 
> An inquirey into "be-ing" I'll name it.
> 
> 
> 
> -R
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 9:02:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Able to change well.
> 
> 
> 
> Which Eastern culture moved beyond it?  
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:58 AM, X Acto wrote:
> 
>> Trouble is Bodvars SOL did'nt recognize it as a western cultural development
>> it was asserted as the evolutional development of the human race.
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: "schoadabyool at talktalk.net" <schoadabyool at talktalk.net>
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 8:02:55 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Able to change well.
>> 
>> While thinking about Ability to change well, and the static and dynamic 
>> functions, i suddenly asked, Is the moq Archetypal?
>> 
>> 
>> This immediately highlighted the antimonies of classic, romantic, static, 
>> dynamic.
>> 
>> 
>> Jung thinks a division between the psychic realm and that of pure emotion lead 
> 
> 
> 
>> to intellectual development.
>> And this reminded me of Bodvar Skutvik's SOL.
>> 
>> 
>> Once humans began to regard people as either material, psychic or spiritual, 
>> the 
>> 
>> psychic and spiritual viewed matter as an opposite.
>> This division is the basis of our cultural development it would seem.
>> 
>> 
>> If you truly believe that Quality invented this division, then it is 
>> understandable why Bodvar regards it as Quality's intellect.
>> This is reinforced by a diagram in Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance 
>> which does not further subdivide the romantic, for that experience is a unity 
>> of 
>> 
>> emotions.
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, emotions change, but that observation is reflective.
>> 
>> 
>> -------------------
>> 
>> 
>> The moq employs different antimonies. These are closer to the material, psychic 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> and spiritual.
>> (Jung thinks that psychic is an indeterminate centre between material and 
>> spiritual, at least at this very early stage).
>> This reminds me of Maxwell's sweet spot or Dynamic coherence idea.
>> And so this is Archetypal too.
>> 
>> 
>> -------------------
>> 
>> 
>> Quality and Dynamic Quality are antimonies in this sense: Quality is a source 
>> and Dynamic Quality is a teleology.
>> They are intellectual discriminations derived from past, future, while 
>> reserving 
>> 
>> an insistence that Quality is a unity of immediate experience.
>> 
>> 
>> -------------------
>> 
>> 
>> It seems to me that Jung ties all this together quite well.
>> But i am not expecting universal agreement.
>> 
>> 
>> One more note, in Subjects, Objects, Data and Values, the four static levels 
>> are 
>> 
>> divided in the object and the subject.
>> This works well for extroverts, but introverts may be more inclined to view 
>> social patterns as alien.
>> And so for introverts, symbolic manipulation of the moq intellect is the only 
>> subject.
>> This view again supports Bodvar's assertions it seems to me.
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you
>> Ade
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 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


 
___