Re: MD MOQ, Intellect, DQ and Woman

From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sat Aug 07 2004 - 00:46:56 BST

  • Next message: ml: "Re: MD DQ & emergence"

    Hello Marsha,
    I'm mel, nice to meet you.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: MarshaV
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:08 PM
    Subject: Re: MD MOQ, Intellect, DQ and Woman

    Hi Mark,

    Thanks. I'm happy to be back.

    You stated, "The term God has specific meaning in philosophy, it is that which nothing exceeds." I think the term god has the same specific meaning in religion. But, a Christian philosopher, for example, would also believe "God" is a personal god. One who may have influence on the lives of humans. Seems to me 'the existence of a God' has been a major debate in Western Philosophy for centuries. The problems with the 'existence of evil' are also based on there being a personal God. The meaning you stated is too simplistic for all Philosophy.

    What is "God's" relationship to MOQ? What is "God's" relationship to the Intellectual Level, the highest level?

    I still think the gender specific word, God, is dangerous because it is confining. God (him, he) is an incomplete concept. This word is wrong whether used by philosophers, the Pope or the Dali Lama. If God is masculine, where does that leave things that are feminine?
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    mel:

    Regarding your first point and third point:

    The Being the greater than which none can be conceived. (God, Larry Ellison, gawd, Dio, Deus. El, YHWH, money, beer &c) Alternatively: Pure intentional consciousness, has been well wrapped in mythology and shall always remain so. The current evolved concept from the millennia of multi-cultural syntheses is merely that. How else can a brain possessed of insufficient awareness to remember the location of car keys even begin to deal with a being even just slightly greater than ourselves, much less ever-so-more-so greater.

    So, we create the myth, wrapped around the referent for something "TOO-MUCH-SO". Hence we can assign any gender or combination or lack that we choose.it's OUR myth.

    Regarding your second point:

    If the Boston catechism is somehow hinting at the reflection of an answer, Q: "Where is God?" A: "Everywhere,"

    which means complete conscious interpenetration of everything always, everywhere, then the relationship is simply non-interfering presence and awareness. Free-will allows the lesser being to reach out and interact or not to on what ever level is recognized or chosen. The problem of evil? Ain't none. It's just a matter of considering things to be important that are smaller than we are capable of or that are defined by social convention. [lots more possible]

    At least it works for me.I'll have another beer, it's Friday

    thanks--mel

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 07 2004 - 00:50:04 BST