--- "Patrick v.d. Berg" <cirandar@yahoo.com> wrote: >
Hi all,
>
> Reoccuring words in this forum are 'sq', 'DQ' and
> 'SOM'. There is a
> tendency here to put forward some argument, and then
> classify it as
> belonging to one of these categories, which then is
> followed simply by a
> '.': no further explanation needed.
> I read here in some posts that things can be real
> independently of our
> consciousness. That makes me wondering about what
> SOM means.
> The MoQ is not a SOM philosophy. But is it? If
> biological and inorganic
> patterns are real but not conscious, should we not
> say that these
> patterns are objectively real; since they can exist
> by themselves,
> without a consciousness to shine upon them needed?
> Instead of two words
> "subject-object" we have five
> "inorganic-organic-biological-social-intellectual"
> (I believe these are
> the levels: I never was good in them)... but no
> essential difference
> between these two perspective; it lies only in the
> jargon that's being
> used.
Taoism = MoQ - SOM ...
what do you think? If anything, what is wrong with
Taoism?
André
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
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 - 16:02:20 BST