On Wednesday 14 November 10:10 AM Arlo writes to Ron:
You said, ³Intellectual is the VALUE of the individual to the social/cultural.² [Arlo] We are saying different things. The intellectual level is not a description of how the ³individual² is valued by the ³social². Each level, as I see it, is a matter of value-relations within that level between certain ³individual² patterns within that level and the larger patterns formed by their collective activity. Indeed, I¹d argue that historically its been the exact opposite of what you suggest. Intellect¹s S/O foundations moves the ³subject² into a role of mere observer. What YOU think about mathematics doesn¹t really matter, two plus two will always equal four. What YOU think doesn¹t matter, if that volcano erupts it does so because of natural forces that we can only passively witness and objectively describe. And ³intellect² has historically pretended it was independent of social-cultural patterns. It attempts to isolate ³man² and present the image that his vision is clear, that in fact society obscures that vision. It presents the illusion that there is a ³pure² subject-object value relationship that is the goal of intellect, one which sees through the haze of distortion created social patterns. This is what echoes in your statement above. Intellect, I¹d argue, is a valuation of a ³transcendence². A transcendence that in S/O thinking elevates a material world to be objectively viewed by a lone subject. Buddhist intellect views this transcendence as a union, or a dissolution, of subject and object (which ZMM echoes). Intellectual patterns are an attempt to codify, quantify and/or describe aspects of this transcendence. And the underlying social and cultural beliefs about this transcendence guide and structure our orientation to it. Hi Arlo, Ron and all I am enjoying your discussion! Thank you! IMO The movement from Social to Intellectual is a movement from Proprietary awareness with luminous intelligence¹ of value to Law with luminous intelligence¹ of evolution. Seemingly evolution stops at the Intellectual level, but I see conscious evolution progressing two more levels, together called enlightenment. A dynamic at the social level is celebrity. Mathematics embodies this value in a logic of higher and lower. Law is the relationship between individuals e.g. the law of gravity. Law cannot be the social level which is a proprietary awareness of individual emptiness with a luminous intelligence¹ of value. ³Intellectual is the Value of the individual to the Social/cultural.² IMO this definition works if I define the social level as proprietary awareness with a luminous intelligence¹ of value. That value of order has become static in evolution to the intellectual level. Bo wants a MOQ meta/level which makes manifest the intellectual level. This is an manifestation in the luminous intelligence¹ of the intellectual evolution. IMO this is not a complete description of evolution to a higher level of enlightenment. There has to be an acknowledgement that the intellectual level is the highest level of cosmic evolution, and any further evolution of an MOQ meta/level is conscious evolution. Joe > [Ron] > I thought this is what I was saying. > > [Arlo] > You said, "Intellectual is the VALUE of the individual to the > social/cultural." > > We are saying different things. The intellectual level is not a > description of how the "individual" is valued by the "social". Each > level, as I see it, is a matter of value-relations within that level > between certain "individual" patterns within that level and the > larger patterns formed by their collective activity. Indeed, I'd > argue that historically its been the exact opposite of what you > suggest. Intellect's S/O foundations moves the "subject" into a role > of mere observer. What YOU think about mathematics doesn't really > matter, two plus two will always equal four. What YOU think doesn't > matter, if that volcano erupts it does so because of natural forces > that we can only passively witness and objectively describe. > > And "intellect" has historically pretended it was independent of > social-cultural patterns. It attempts to isolate "man" and present > the image that his vision is clear, that in fact society obscures > that vision. It presents the illusion that there is a "pure" > subject-object value relationship that is the goal of intellect, one > which sees through the haze of distortion created social patterns. > This is what echoes in your statement above. > > Intellect, I'd argue, is a valuation of a "transcendence". A > transcendence that in S/O thinking elevates a material world to be > objectively viewed by a lone subject. Buddhist intellect views this > transcendence as a union, or a dissolution, of subject and object > (which ZMM echoes). Intellectual patterns are an attempt to codify, > quantify and/or describe aspects of this transcendence. And the > underlying social and cultural beliefs about this transcendence guide > and structure our orientation to it. > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
