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: Nobody can define an Intellectual Level, or anything for that matter, using knowledge they do not possess and the whole level of patterns cannot be possessed in total. That is a shortcoming of all intellectual patterns and the Intellectual Level. Ron: I didn't mean it in quite a literal way, more that in a way in which a society values certain individual patterns for example our own culture values those who use analylics proficiently in native cultures those who are proficient in the ways of the the Brujo or shaman are revered. So when I say that the intellectual level is defined by the society it emerges from, I mean that the intellectual level is defined by the value a society places in a certain kind of knowledge and the individuals who posses that knowledge. >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... Marsha: Hmmmm. But these are Code of art experiences. What makes them wonderful is the sense that they have gone beyond intellectual patterns and offer intuitional, insightful and more direct experiences. Ron: This is the significance of Pirsigs view, that intellectual endeavors are to be this way, the transference of knowledge using code of art, learning is a dynamic experience, intellectual patterns are supposed to be intuitional, insightful and more direct experiences not cold methodical purely abstract operations. This is not so much "moving beyond intellectual patterns" for this hints at the essentialist view of "meta-levels" and evolutionary hierarchies, it is more a Renaissance of the realization of what intellectual patterns really involve and mean. The re-emergence of the dynamic quality of knowledge and it's acquisition. ________________________________ From: MarshaV <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, May 1, 2009 11:43:16 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Science Wars At 10:58 AM 5/1/2009, you wrote: Marsha: I have considered these arguments myself. >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: Nobody can define an Intellectual Level, or anything for that matter, using knowledge they do not possess and the whole level of patterns cannot be possessed in total. That is a shortcoming of all intellectual patterns and the Intellectual Level. >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... Marsha: Hmmmm. But these are Code of art experiences. What makes them wonderful is the sense that they have gone beyond intellectual patterns and offer intuitional, insightful and more direct experiences. >I think we make a grave mistake by judging other societies >by our own standards and criteria >of what constitues "intellectual" patterns. I agree this would be a mistake. But I also think the idea is to move beyond the intellectual patterns that have emerged from whatever society, past the abstract manipulation of the symbols representing generalities. What is an abstract symbol if not a reification of some generality, some object? Marsha >-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/ . _____________ 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/
