Hello Marsha, Marsha: How is the Intellectual Level as a s/o level anthropomorphic?
Ron: Because the intellectual level is defined by the society it emerges from. Marsha: 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. Ron: We must not forget how Alexander the great brought analytic to the east circa 300 b.c. besides, there are many forms of intellectual communication that does not involve s/o such as painting, dance, poetry, sculpture,music, ect... I think we make a grave mistake by judging other societies by our own standards and criteria of what constitues "intellectual" patterns. -Ron ________________________________ From: MarshaV <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, May 1, 2009 10:13:23 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Science Wars 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/ 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/
