SA,
I agree with what I think you've written here. Marsha At 08:06 PM 12/22/2007, you wrote: > [Marsha] > > I found this in RMP's letter to Paul 09/2003: > > "When getting into a definition of the intellectual > > level much > > clarity can be gained by recognizing a parallel with > > the lower > > levels. Just as every biological pattern is also > > inorganic, but not > > all inorganic patterns are biological; and just as > > every social level > > is also biological, although not all biological > > patterns are social; > > so every intellectual pattern is social although not > > all social > > patterns are intellectual. Handshaking, ballroom > > dancing, raising > > one's right hand to take an oath, tipping one's hat > > to the ladies, > > saying "Gesundheit !" after a sneeze-there are > > trillions of social > > customs that have no intellectual component. > > Intellectuality occurs > > when these customs as well as biological and > > inorganic patterns are > > designated with a sign that stands for them and > > these signs are > > manipulated independently of the patterns they stand > > for. "Intellect" > > can then be defined very loosely as the level of > > independently > > manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics > > can be described as > > the rules of this sign manipulation." > > [Marsha continues] > > It sounds like RMP is saying that inorganic > > patterns, biological > > patterns & social patterns are contained within the > > Intellectual > > Level, but are represented as "a sign that stands > > for them". > > > > > [SA currently] > This is what I've referred to before as the >intellect can point out a tree, but the tree is not a >thought. If I may continue off of this previous line >of thinking of mine, then to intellectualize about a >tree is the intellects experience about a tree, but a >tree's experience is not what the intellect >experiences about the tree. > I've tried to explain this to Matt K. over a month >ago and he said he would get back to me, but he never >did. I'd like to bring this back up, since this >thread seems to be going this way. I believe what I >wrote above in the previous paragraph points out why >'pure experience' and 'direct experience' is quality >experiencing itself (quality). Thus, since quality is >static patterns and dynamic, each static level can >experience. I find the 'pure' and 'direct' is >pointing out the 'quality experiencing itself >(quality)'. Also since each level, for example, the >intellect can experience (which I refer to as >intellectualizing) quality directly (for all >components/levels are still quality), thus, when >intellect is experiencing quality directly, one can >say intellect at this moment is 'quality experiencing >itself (quality)'. Thus, the journey of >intellectualizing can be a dynamic experience (and >this is how dq is embedded within each >level/component). This is also how intellect directly >experiencing quality can be experience that one might >call enlightening for intellect in this experience >can't be distinguished from quality. The static >patterns 'trailing' each level's/components direct >experience are experiences made static and understood >in more distinguishing/distinct patterns. > Is there a difference between 'pure experience' >and 'experience', in the end as the beginning and in >the middle, not really, but 'pure experience' might be >made distinct from experience as journey is made >distinct from map. The map is an experience, but not >the journey. Yet, the map can be a pure experience, a >journey when one reads the map or the map itself falls >back on itself as a quality experience undistinguished >from any other quality experience when the map is >understood as a component of quality itself. > This understanding of mine goes back to a >discussion with David H. many months ago in which the >code of art was discussed. The code of art seems to >be dq codified as sq, and thus when I concluded dq is >sq for they are originally and thus always quality. > > >woods, >SA > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Be a better friend, newshound, and >know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it >now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > >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/
