[MD] Free Will

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Sun Apr 24 23:07:14 PDT 2011 


Hi Mark,

I agree that the Intellectual Level is not a group of intellects; it's not just 
thinking and not just a collection of thoughts.  Though static quality has 
an interdependence with consciousness as it represents what can be 
conceptualized.  -  I tend to see the categorization into a level as based 
on function.  

'Groups of people' is an interesting phrase, sort of a way around the 
self-ego problem.  Still, even without the negative ego connotation, 
the term 'person' within the 'group of people', or individual, is a static
pattern of value, an useful illusion.  There are no such thing as a
'simple human' so I agree they are not the sole source of intellectual 
patterns, or any kind static patterns.

No matter how much I admire the MoQ's evolutionary, hierarchical level- 
structure of patterned quality, I prefer the net-of-jewels model.  It may not 
suit the Western point-of-view (whatever that might be), but it suits me.  


Marsha  


On Apr 24, 2011, at 4:03 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> Just to let you know I read your question, thanks.  I have tried to
> open this subject in other posts, but it seems that this is the topic
> nobody wants to talk about.  Perhaps it is deemed trivial, has already
> been covered and therefore not interesting, or else people do not have
> a firm opinion on this.  I might start this up again, but maybe
> someone else may take a stab.  My initial premise is that the
> Intellectual Level is not a group of intellects, just like the
> societal level is not a group of people.  We do not think in the
> Intellectual Level or even create it with our intellect.  It is a
> level, not a result of us simple humans.
> 
> I'll leave it at that.  What I negate it being.  It is also not a
> toad, just incase some think that my negation was incomplete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> What do you mean by Intellectual Level?  How do you define it?
>> By purpose?  by function?  Or something else?
>> 
>> I wonder if we can imagine beyond the "intellectual level"?
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, 118 wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> Certainly everything is open to healthy and meaningful rhetoric
>>> debate.  One must admit, however, that there are certain philosophies
>>> that rise to the popular top.  I can only hope that MoQ becomes one of
>>> these.  In previous posts I have analogized these to rogue waves.
>>> There is no way to dismiss these phenomena with logic, psychology,
>>> sociology, or mathematics (all intellectual constructs).
>>> 
>>> For example, take the Axial Age as presented by Karl Jaspers.  There
>>> was a sudden increase in personal philosophy during this age.  A
>>> transformation of popular questioning of that inside rather than that
>>> outside.  This was personified by thinkers such as Buddha, Lao Tzu,
>>> Socrates, and many others.  In our current age, we have gone back to
>>> that outside, with philosophies such as Scientism.  Such is the
>>> circular nature of beliefs.
>>> 
>>> Some consider this Axial Age to be an intervention of sorts.  This
>>> could have cycles of 2,500 years or so, if one wants to subscribe to
>>> this theory.  I am fine with this since it can be the intellectual
>>> level asserting itself into the personal and then societal levels.
>>> Others subscribe to other things such as alien or spiritual
>>> intervention.  I find the former more believable.  Many books have
>>> been written about such things, of course.
>>> 
>>> This OR That can be useful for meaningful discussion.  If we slide
>>> into the unity of all, which could be considered the pre-intellectual
>>> level (or maybe an expression of the right brain),  it puts our
>>> intellect in a bad light (imho).  I think the intellect, although
>>> wrought with problems and possible misdirection, gives us meaning and
>>> provides much of the societal level as well.  Buddha believed highly
>>> of the intellectual level.  Jesus subscribed more to the intuitive
>>> (pre-intellectual) level.  Each one may be describing the same thing,
>>> just in different ways.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:06 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> I certainly would not want to be understood as supporting logical
>>>> anarchy, chaos or nihilism, but nor do I believe things are necessarily
>>>> 'this OR that.'   Even with the hindsight of history, there might be
>>>> disagreement concerning meaningfulness.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Apr 24, 2011, at 12:25 PM, 118 wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>>> Certainly meaningfulness in the moment can be subjective.  There are
>>>>> cases, however, where certain meaningfulness is supported through
>>>>> subsequent history.  We could then state that it is possible that one
>>>>> thing is more meaningful than another in that context, and in fact
>>>>> have its roots in the moment.  Otherwise meaningfulness becomes
>>>>> meaningless.  And we don't want that kind of nihilism in this forum.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mark
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 12:38 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2011, at 3:14 AM, X Acto wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ron:
>>>>>>> I'm sorry Dan but you do need to explain yourself if you care about any sort of
>>>>>>> meaningful philosophic discussion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>>> Most philosophic discussions are based on disagreement.  And "meaningful"
>>>>>> is in the eyes of the beholder.  Also what is 'acceptable explanation' is another
>>>>>> relative matter.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ___
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ___
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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


 
___

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list