RE: MD PhD Viva Questions

From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Aug 15 2004 - 17:23:57 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD Metaphysics of Value"

    Hello everyone

    >From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
    >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >Subject: RE: MD PhD Viva Questions
    >Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:22:21 -0600
    >
    >Dan,
    >
    >Dan said:
    > > The MOQ would say a self, a human being, consists of four levels of
    >value
    > > plus undefined Dynamic Quality. Buddhists practice to kill the
    >intellectual
    > > self through meditation and mindfulness while sustaining the social self
    >and
    > > biological self.
    >
    >Some Buddhists may see it that way, but not all by a long shot. I quoted
    >Robert Aitken (a Zen master) on this recently. The purpose of meditation
    >and mindfulness is not to kill the intellect but to improve it, by learning
    >to silence monkey mind. One also, as a Buddhist, learns logic and applies
    >it to oneself not to kill the intellect but to rid the intellect of
    >limiting beliefs.

    Hi Scott

    You're right. I should have said "some" Buddhists. There are all kinds of
    different schools of thought when it comes to meditation and mindfulness but
    in the end you just have to see for yourself. I notice what I think of
    normally as thinking or intellect is actually my internal discursive
    dialogue telling me how the world is made up. So when I say "killing the
    intellect" perhaps I actually mean stopping the internal discursive
    dialogue. I would guess that's what Robert Aitken might mean by learning to
    silence "monkey mind." I think Robert Pirsig alluded to this in LILA'S CHILD
    where he noted the German language has two words for knowledge. Buddhist
    meditation and mindfulness attempt to silence one so the other can flourish.

    >
    > > Musical harmony (or disharmony as the case may be) and the harmony
    >Quality
    > > produces are not necessarily the same. The former is a biological level
    > > experience while the latter is an idea.
    >
    >Musical harmony is biological?. True, it may soothe the savage beast
    >(though I wouldn't count on a song to save myself from a charging bear),
    >but I don't think I am satisfying a biological need when listening to
    >music. Perhaps dance music, in part, but why in that case do I ask for more
    >than just a beat?

    My thinking here is that I hear music and I intellectually know if it
    harmonizes or not from the social expectation of music I've heard before. I
    would suspect that since you expect more you ask for more than just a beat.
    But without hearing the music I have no way of knowing if it harmonizes or
    not. So that's why I said music is biological. If I had never heard music
    would there be any expectation of it?

    Thank you for your comments,

    Dan

    _________________________________________________________________
    Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
    http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

    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 : Sun Aug 15 2004 - 17:41:42 BST