Stricklin, Jay
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 Jay Stricklin wrote:
> I know I'm lagging behind the discussion a bit, but I wanted to address
> those who would like ideas on how not to think in terms of the SOM. I'm
> going to butcher this quote, but Robert Frost said (for those of you
> familiar with Robert Frost, I am not, so please accept my interpretation of
> the following.) something like "God's ultimate sacrifice was in
> substantiation..." That for me sparked a revelation many years ago.
> Duality is the price of substance.
Greetings Jay and Group
I was struck by the "quality" of your first post and this one also
attracted my attention. How not to think in SOM terms!? I hope that I
have interpreted you correctly as saying that the Subject-Object
division entered existence at some point ...and thus isn't part
of the big picture; AS IT IS!
I have come to the same conclusion, and what's more: SOM with
the M removed (not AS IT IS, but as it came to be) is no evil, but
rather the highest quality level - Intellect!!. You allude to the
fall myth; eating of the tree of knowledge; substantiation. [An
aside here. My dictionary defines that word as giving facts to
support a claim, but to me it sounds as "incarnation". Is that
correct?]
> Duality is the price of substance. The wonder of substantiation, besides
> the pure experience of the whole thing, is sensation. ......
Exactly, but 'substance' and 'spirit' are are concepts=
language=intellect so the impact of substantiation/fall from grace
did not occur at the time it happened - so to say - but much later :
along with "knowing" or the Intellect of MOQ. Along with
humans in other words.
> There is no sensation, without friction, of either bodies or physical objects
Yes and yes again. Sensation is BODY! But you go on....
> or of emotions, which are inextricable from sensation in the fact that the
> friction is caused by a self or spirit defined by objects.
Yes, with qualifications. For me emotion is SOCIETY; the
ability to abstrahize or share sensations. An animal that witness
another being eaten does not "wince" and feels the fangs in its own
flesh much less sorry for the victim or hatred for the predator.
But that emotions are "out of sensations" to that I agree fully.
> If substantiation of the spirit were not, there were would be no need to
> communicate because the having of thought would presuppose the thought of
> having it, we would be one. Only then can communication take place without
> SOM. This is very basic, there is nothing wrong with SOM thought when
> trying to communicate as we do here, it is the nature of language, logic and
> of the physical world.
Yes, but I am a little more optimistic: Once the quality idea (and
what you write here..... and my SOTAQI!!) is grasped communication or
subject-objectivization is seen for what it is: ONE QUALITY LEVEL
and not the whole of reality, the "fall" is resurrected.
Great thinking and formulations Jay
(Silly question but is Jay male or female? Not that it matters, but I
miss the little intro/bio piece we used to have)
Bodvar
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST