Subject: Re: [MD] The Intellectual Gauntlet Mati,
Ron prev:I agree that Bodvar's approach points to the distinction but I have to disagree with his notion that the s/o divide is a universal human condition. He does point to Western cultures specific distinction of it's own intellectual level with out a doubt. Mati: Well I am glad we are in half agreement, but I am unaware in the Eastern Culture in the Historical period of 500 B.C. (give or take a hundred years) that provide a different form of intellect that broke away from the social level as decisive as the SOM. Ron: That is because it had not been introduced yet. When Alexander conquered Asia he brought with him his language and his culture and infused them with Indic and Chinese culture from 335 .BCE into Roman era 30 BCE This is when logic began to be kicked around by the Buddhists. But it did not get far because Chinese language is pictographic and does not make the concrete/abstract distinction in its language also It did not have a word for the Greek "is" which seems to be particular to the indo-European languages. Since they have no concept of "being" as we do, logic predicated on it made little sense. Therefore "truth" for them has a different meaning than our concept of "truth". To be sure Mati, The Easts run with logic failed because they saw through it right away, not because the were not evolved enough. Mati: As I noted in my post to Ian, if you observe modern day research methologies in the eastern cultures they likely teather themselves to the S/O split (SOM) because, I believe, because it was the most effective means to define reality in a research environment. If the Eastern philosophical tradition was able to define reality in a more effective means I would suggest that would be a) incorporated already or b) displaced SOM or c) we would be studying them in the western world. Ron: We do not study them because the Academic mind is of the same ilk as yours, if truth is not defined in the same manner it is inferior. Mati: As a side note Zen Buddhism as a whole rejects intellect as a means for greater understanding yet there is a common notion that perhaps Buddhism is a different form of intellect. It is what it is. Ron: Bingo Ron prev: I think the best way of defining an intellectual level is by how a culture describes it. Clearly this is representational of the levels, with intellect being emergent from the society. There is no universal society therefore no universal definition of the intellectual level. Mati: I think this approach has its limitations because, as illustrated in both ZAMM and LILA, culture has been so entrenched in the SOM it is difficult to see it in any other way. However I will eat my cake and have it too, by saying that is SOM is so entrench in our culture that might suggest this might support defining Intellect as SOM. Ron: This then falls rightly with your line of questioning above and agrees with the MoQ description as a whole. The s/o divide is the intellectual level for western culture. Intellect in western culture is defined by analytical thinking. analytical thinking predicates itself on the s/o distinction as layed out by Aristotles axioms of analytical logic. To make the distinction between that which is measurable is measurable and that which is not, is not. Mati: BINGO!!! Ron: If the west's concept of truth is predicated on the verb "is" then it stands to reason that languages that do not have a word or a concept of "is" are not going to intellectualize "truth" in the same manner or "being" for that matter. If SOM is not an intellectual Pattern and it is defined as THE Intellectual level then WHERE does MOQ fit into it? It causes all sorts of paradoxes and convoluted nonsense (SOL) to justify this claim not to mention ignoring most of Lila. Since our language is predicated on the abstract/concrete distinction of nouns we may utilize this distinction by appending our conception of the reference, where formally this distinction referred to entities isolated in space we now see as patterns of experience distinguished by dynamic/static distinction. Being aware that these are linguistic descriptors of Quality. Therefore we may speak of dynamic experience without contradicting the Moq. Its when we make the SOM fallacy of speaking about MoQ terminology as if they are concrete entities that all the confusion in meaning begins and the discussions become paralyzed. thanks Mati. 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/
