[MD] Zen and theArt of Religion

[Jan Anders Andersson]

Hi Andre

Sorry about the delay. My point was that we can beat something material with a stick but we can’t hit a concept at the intellectual level with a stick. Each level has its tools. To maintain a social motorcycle we have to use social ”sticks” and vice versa. There is some ”spill” over to the nearest level, as one can be offended by a naughty word and biological patterns can be hurt by harsh material surroundings. I know there are people trying to talk with vegetables and even think that rocks too can listen to small talk but these people are wrong because they don’t understand the 4 levels of the MOQ fully. 

Descarte’s test works only at the same level. We can prove that a thought is, by comparing it to another thought. Social patterns are fooling around with lawyers and people in love and so on. Living entities are competing by other living species. ”Live” music is just physical vibrations in the air but just because it is created almost simultaneusly to the listening it is regarded as better than reproduced by a machine.

It’s like talking moral or ethics to a SOMer, quite fruitless. We must begin with to convince the person that there IS art and moral, at first.

I, myself, enjoy the thought of the roundness of the moon. How long will it take before someone finds a method for applying commercials on it?

Cheers

Jan-Anders


4 sep 2014 x kl. 22:37 skrev Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>:

> J.A to John and Andre :
> But anyone of you still can't hit one of these DEEP values with a stick nor talk to the stick. Aint that peculiar?
> 
> Andre:
> That ain’t peculiar J.A. Nr one: I do not know where John gets the DEEP values from…perhaps from his groin…could be anything but as Pirsig pointed out: do not confuse the different levels of values…they are empires all on their own,  evolutionary developments one should not mess with…even in the head.
> 
> That is why Pirsig suggested that inorganic and organic levels are ¨objective” in the sense that you can measure them ( i.e. touch, see, hear, smell, taste, feel them) and that social and intellectual values are ¨subjective”  in the sense that you cannot measure them ( i.e.you cannot sense them [in the usual way of sense perception]). 
> 
> Your stick endeavor doesn’t make much sense in that regard. I mean, what are you trying to prove or what are you suggesting?
> 
> Evolution seems to be a development from the gross toward the subtle (in Ken Wilber’s terms). I fail to see or appreciate the point you are making or trying to investigate.
> 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