Hello Bo, Glenn, Rick
BO:Explain the S of SOM in terms of the O! Exactly! (and the O in terms of the
S for the idealist camp I would add) is the self-
defeating task that the SOMites never seem to tire of, and regrettably a trap
that so many would-be MOQites also fall for. See the "Seeing the Light"
thread.
Hear, hear! Now, Scott. I remember that you forwarded REASON as the
"characteristic" of Intellect. I wonder if you have noticed my "crusade" to
get Q-intellect reigned in under the general value of S/O (the ability to
divide what is objective from what is subjective is REASON) stripped of its
'M' naturally ...just wonder if you have evaluated it? Bo
ERIN: So reasoning about dharmakaya light means you are stuck in in SOM. How
is reasoning about dharmakaya light and "evaluating" your proposal of the
intellectual level, MOQ, etc different. There is nothing wrong with reasoning
about something if you know you are only reasoning about it. That is you are
stuck in SOM only if you think reasoning is all there is.. If you think we are
stuck in SOM then please "evaluate" dharmakaya light for us.
GLENN
In typical Pirsig fashion, he simultaneously does and doesn't think there
is something mystical or supernatural about the light.
ERIN:
Maybe Pirsig is contradicting himself and that is not such a bad thing...
I just read and really lilked J. Marder essay on the forum "The End of
Causality"
Here's just the beginning and end of his essay you can go look up the rest..
The End of Causality
© Jonathan B. Marder
Did you ever wonder why flower petals form into such exquisite patterns and
why snowflakes form in such perfect geometric shapes? Yet scientists tell us
that the universe is winding down towards ever increasing disorder. Why the
contradiction? The contradiction between science and "common sense" seems to
be ever increasing. This is usually attributed to "strange" relativistic and
quantum effects discovered in the twentieth century. The purpose of this short
essay is to show that the roots of this problem go back to previous centuries
- and you don't need to know quantum mechanics or relativity to understand it.
Darwin's great insight was in realizing that evolution isn't a process
directed towards some specific goal, but change away from a pre-existing
situation. Random changes (e.g. mutations, genetic recombinations etc.) move
organisms away from being direct clones of previous generations. Natural
selection is the result of circumstances favouring certain directions of
change above others. Thus, one can say that populations tend to evolve to more
favoured forms! Alternatively, the survivors are the ones whose survival is
favoured by circumstance! These statements are just as tautological as my
earlier statement on the directionality of chemical reactions. Reducing things
to tautologies suggests that these are truths which express underlying axioms.
These fundamental axioms are expressed in chemistry, biology and whatever
other complex systems we wish to consider.
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 - 16:01:56 BST