Greetings Ron,
I did not make a blanket statement that Bo is correct in every statement.
How is the Intellectual Level as a s/o level anthropomorphic?
It is true that some oriental philosophies, at their core, have moved
beyond s/o, if that is what you mean. But it seems to me they have
moved beyond all levels. And how many Eastern practitioners move to
the core understanding. The Buddhists define the major suffering,
conflict and illusion of humans beings as the reification of self and
entities. No need to state this if it weren't such a common
misconception even in the East.
I have been thinking about this for weeks. I wouldn't mind if you
challenged this switch. I will need to test it anyway and would
welcome some assistance. Not that there will be an absolute truth at
the end...
Marsha
At 09:28 AM 5/1/2009, you wrote:
Per western culture, Bo is correct and defining the intellecetual
level as the value of the s/o divide is useful in this context.
Where Bo and I disagree is assuming that the s/o divide
IS the intellectual level for all life in an evolutionary context.
It fails because it takes anthropomorphic leanings toward
cultural-centric assumptions about expereince by projecting our
language structure onto it.
-Ron
________________________________
From: MarshaV <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2009 6:35:09 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Science Wars
Greetings all,
Bo is correct in thinking it would be best to describe the
Intellectual Level as the S/O level.
It seems to me that all these levels contain patterns that represent
conceptually constructed entities of both the general and particular
type, and that as concepts they are all a product of a post-s/o
thinking. And patterns in the Intellectual Level include the
awareness of having separated subject from object.
OMG, that feels good. Now it's time to go off dancing with a moon
shadow for a while.
Marsha
Marsha
At 04:17 AM 5/1/2009, you wrote:
>Hello Will,
>
>It has been interesting to think about science, quantum this and
>that, evolutionary this and that, genetic this and that, all
>fascinating, like daffodils as yellow this and thats. Science as a
>general pattern is very large and powerful; it is an institution
>capable of producing both benevolence and malevolence. I am not
>willing to judge science as being more than 'it is what it is',
>patterns conceptually constructed and existing conventionally. I
>could never settle for the theories that science provides, and think
>you, being a trained scientist, are a bit too prejudice.
>
>I sometimes wonder if Bo is correct in thinking it would be best to
>describe the Intellectual Level as the S/O level, but maybe that's
>just reflecting my own conceptual limitations.
>
>
>Marsha
>
>
>
>At 01:27 AM 5/1/2009, you wrote:
>
>>Hi Marsha,
>>
>>The big bang theory has some problems with it. I think the
>>whole idea is based on our infatuation with evolution. Because
>>we think we can explain why animal bones look the way they
>>do, we use it to explain everything. I have presented by view of
>>evolution in previous posts.
>>
>>Tom van Flandern has a good article on the issues with the
>>big bang, showing how most data supports a static universe,
>>at http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp
>>
>>Don't believe everything those scientist tell you (I know you don't :-).
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Willblake2
>>
>>On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:24:20 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>>At 11:13 AM 4/30/2009, you wrote:
>> >Marsha:
>> >
>> >The age of the universe would be shorter than the age of oldest
stars. This
>> >contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the
Hubble constant
>> >is incorrect, 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect or 3) that we
need a form
>> >of matter like a cosmological constant that implies an older age
>> for a given
>> >observed expansion rate
>> >
>> >Hi Marsha,
>> >
>> >Or that there are/ have been more 'bangs'.?
>> >
>> >Andre
>>
>>
>>Bangettes? Do-lang-do-lang-do-lang...
>>
>>
>>.
>>_____________
>>
>>Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
>>.
>>.
>>
>>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/
>
>.
>_____________
>
>Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
>.
>.
>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/
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
