Dear Bo,
>. . . wide open up for arguments of the Angus kind.
>Bless him ;-)
*shrug*
I can see what Angus says.
Seems it's all in the mind - and on 'love' it's all bio-physiology.
- surely we could have 'levels' here too ??
Seems that's what Nietzsche is getting at. Pirsig too. And Fromm even
after he wanders through lots of 'hard wired' sex/love experience
along the nature of Angus's summary, pleas for us to question what it
is that overrides it.
I dunno - doesn't look like a blind alley to me.
I could say :
I think 'intellect' is a glass ceiling. (and the 'trap')
But perhaps it is a singular pursuit, since it will only ever be the
intellect we correspond with here at our keyboards.
and maybe, like those before me - that's as far as I can take it!
Although I see a little 'crack'! - a glimmer! - perhaps we could talk
about the 'symptoms' of what would be beyond bio-physiology.
... anyhow ... I'm thinking on it...
Yippie! - Here comes Oisín!!
>(in
>that sense, "bent towards goodness" could be valid as a phenomemon of
>Quality, but not "of mind")
In the mean time, I send you all my love,
Tanya
>Hi MD.
>When reading Angus' messages I thought: "Here's what you get
>when starting on the path of equating Quality with "love/goodness"
>....of SOM! This discussion necessarily had to revert to the social
>level of emotions for a while after the terrorist attacks, but when
>starting to climb the Q-ladder it's not enough to stop at SOM-
>intellect, but go all the way up to the MoQ-intellect.
>
>No offense, but Angus' message I don't care for commenting, he
>has not the least inkling of what the MoQ is about ... but may be a
>staunch moqist the moment he understands. From his present
>point of view he may even be right in relegating "love" to the limbic
>(emotional) brain. A word for Robert D. who, by referring to
>Nietszche, started Tanya on the love thread. He wrote:
>
>> Who truly believes that "God is Dead" though? Only Nietzsche
>> it would
>> seem, for God is very much alive in the minds of even the most
>> intellectual people of this world. SOM is a pattern that has no good
>> or evil, no morality within it
>
>Right. SOM/Intellect puts both morality and its warrantor God in its
>subjective realm.
>
> > yet morality persists. Nietzsche saw
>> the death of the social level God, a God which gave the social level
>> it's authority and morals, replaced by the intellectual level, a level
>> with no authority greater than the many minds that believe in it.
>
>Maybe he had some kind of Phaedrus experience (I tend to believe
>so), but did not "return" with any system similar to the MoQ
>
>> He
>> predicted the death of the social level, but although weakened, it
>> still survives. What he failed to see was the Metaphysics of Quality,
>> and how the social level fits into the big picture.
>
>Exactly ...had he just known any Q-levels.
>
>> God has changed
>> though, the subject-object definition of it has put it in a box where
>> it doesn't belong. Have you ever wondered what the saying "God is
>> good" really means? The words are so so close that they could have the
>> same root. Could it not be a definition? Quality. If quality is a
>> genuine part of reality one would have to be totally blind not to see
>> it in the levels other than as "truth", it's intellectual
>> interpretation. That's why it persists, because it exists. So
>> Nietzsche was both wrong and right, because although the intellectual
>> level doesn't require a God, definer of morals, it never really did
>> die when the intellectual level took over. And "God has been
>> resurrected by MOQ" anyway.
>
>I find this in accordance with my own ideas. Earlier I have pursued
>an idea that what took place in Greece (the birth of subject/object
>metaphysics) had a counterpart in the Middle East where the many
>lesser gods who were responsible for all existence's aspects
>(naturally also death and destruction) became a monotheistic
>distant creator of an evil world. A theological counterpart to SOM
>so to say.
>
>But from this to start equating Quality with the good of "God in
>Heaven" leaves it wide open up for arguments of the Angus kind.
>Bless him ;-)
>Bo
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:32 BST