[MD] The hard question.

[118]

Hi Andre,
With all due respect, I do not see Marsha's contributions the same way
you do.  However, I have no idea as to her personal objectives other
than she enjoys engaging in discussion, sometimes being provocative to
do so.  But who can blame here?  Members seem to be sitting around a
table wondering what to do next, rather than moving forward with the
next grand thing.  It is like a whirlpool swirling around the writings
of a couple of books.  How much has MoQ evolved since Lila's Child?
What new ideas have been presented?  I am willing to learn.

If indeed we are to walk the high country, then we cannot possibly
know what lies before us until we get there.  If instead we seek the
comfort of the predictable valley, then we can hang on to words as the
final objective.  There seems to be a tendency towards group behavior
rather than an honest discussion of individual ideals.  Everybody
angrily huddling together in what they know, not hiking towards what
they could know.

Philosophy is not the process of contending that there is only one way
to see things.  Philosophy is a process of creation.  It is not one
against the other, it is combining together to explore the high
country.  Philosophy advances through proposals followed by
discussion, and not contending that MoQ is a done deal.  Lila does not
have the art of a proper metaphysics.  This is for good reason, since
the purpose of the book is to suggest an inquiry, not to be a magnum
opus.  It is intended to open doors, not shut them.

An alternative is to assume that we are all saying the same thing in
different ways.  Translating someone else's post into personal
understanding of the Good, and not get hung up with the words.  A two
sentence phrase is not as useful as a paragraph in exchanging ideas.
Else wise Lila would have been a list.

We are not stuck in static quality because we understand what it is.
We speculate through SOM dialogue since we need to objectify our
awareness.  There is no intellectual trap knowing this secret, which
Marsha knows.  We present arguments not proofs or truths.  If
something does not sound right, we present an alternative.  We are all
speaking about the same thing, in case you forgot.

Given that Andre, could you present a paragraph containing a summary
of how you see the intellectual level?  In your own words of course.
This way we can understand what it is you are speaking of.  I you
cannot, it would seem you don't seem to have any ground to stand on to
tell somebody else they are wrong.  Shouldn’t be hard to put your
thoughts down on paper.  "The intellectual level is..."

Thanks and best wishes,
Mark

On 5/23/12, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Addendum to Marsha's hard question:
>
> Marsha had said:'Now is it the case that one will fall off the Earth if
> one explores beyond "repeated arrangements" or "stable configurations"
> or "steady structures"?
>
> Andre:
> It only is a case of falling 'of the Earth' if one operates from a SOM
> perspective and your question, from that perspective, confirms your idea
> (conform to Bodvar Skutvik) that the intellectual level IS SOM.
>
> By giving us a five(!) sentence paragraph of a simple and elegant notion
> set down as  'repeated arrangement' (put forward by Anthony) suggests to
> me that YOU are the one reifying/objectifying these simple two words by
> demanding an ever expanding definition to, and in the end, incorporating
> and attempting to encapsulating all the varieties and possibilities that
> are present within and without that configuration that you get
> hopelessly lost in.
>
> Because it simply cannot be done. And you know that! This is the
> intellectual trap you are into.
>
> It realy smacks of post (de)constructionist post-modernism to me which,
> as far as I am concerned is not very modern and very destructive.
>
> You are continually trying to slither your way out of tight situations.
> I have suggested numerous ways and provided examples of this occurring
> and this is just another one of those. By giving a five-sentence
> definition instead of a two-word one you give yourself a means of
> escape...to slither away behind every word in your five sentence
> definition because , if someone questions you about any part, you demand
> a definition of the part YOU included in YOUR definition. See how you do
> this Marsha?! It is not very fair. It is not very intellectual and it
> certainly is not very honest. And, what's more, this is the way every
> pseudo-philosophy works nowadays, spending endless amounts of energy and
> (stale) ideas producing them through endless amounts of written ink on
> forest's amounts of woodpulp ending up in circles upon circles of
> read/unread and accumulated wastepaper. Phaedrus presented us with a few
> of these examples and you continue them.
>
> You say you have but I simply cannot believe you have read LILA.
>
> Please go on with your mindfulness and leave discussing MOQ to others okay?
>
>
>
> 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
>