At 12:11 PM 5/2/2009, you wrote:
HI Ron,
RMP has describes the Intellectual level:
In Lila, I never defined the intellectual level
of the MOQ, since everyone who is up to reading Lila
already knows what "intellectual" means. For purposes of
MOQ precision, let's say that the intellectual level is the
same as mind. It is the collection and manipulation of
symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of
experience.
(LILA's Child, Annotation 25)
I see the brujo and shaman living more from the mystical experience,
that of insight and intuition. My interpretation is that the
Intellectual Level is more Philosophy & Science's (experiment, math &
logic) domain.
Ron:
And this is the problem. Pirsig reminds us that the both the mystic
and the scientist
derrive meaning from expereince. The difference between them is
the system they use to do it
and their assumptions created from that system.
Pirsig says the intellectual level is the same as the mind, the collection and
manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that stands for
patterns of experience,
per this explaination, how does the shaman differ from the scientist
besides the system
they use to do it?
Somewhere RMP uses math, logic and rules of grammer as examples of
patterns of the Intellectual kind, patterns that are not
representative of something in an objective world. But this is my
point, the scientist takes these abstract concepts and turns them
into objects representing Absolute Truth. The patterns within the
Intellectual Level become objectified. It even seems that the
relationship between objects become an object to study, objects one
and all, severed from interdependency with other processes. There
that is a description of intellectual patterns. My there are those
in Science who believe that Reality can only be represented by
mathematics, others who say Reality can only be represented by logic
and still other who say Reality can only be represented by
experience. Whatever there approach they then reify the representation.
So there are intellectual patterns, but there is also a type of
thinking (a native intelligence) as action/experience. I see the
shaman as dynamic thinker using a native intelligence
(action/experience) that is not so trapped within repeating patterns
(social or intellectual), more spontaneous, more dynamic, freer,
rational yet outside the box, etc. Of course a scientist could also
by a dynamic thinker, but doubt that many are. Now that sweet little
Einstein was a playful science-guy, a shaman don't you think? I'm
not belittling scientist, most are stuck in a system that does not
encourage spontaneous play.
The shaman is acting with a intelligence that is creative and
dynamic, and probably not using intellectual patterns. The scientist
is manipulating abstract patterns within some existing systemized theory.
Is this making any sense?
>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.
Marsha:
I'm not seeing the Intellectual Level and its patterns this way,
although intellectual patterns might be interacted with in an
intuitional, insightful and more directly experienced way, all
patterns, even intellectual patterns are static. The phrase I used
'moving beyond intellectual patterns' now seems a very poor choice of
words. It now seems better to say not that the Code of Art
experience is not above the Intellectual Level, but is acting from
beyond the limitations of all patterns. The Code of Art is not a set
of patterns, but a way of interacting with patterns that is, as you
say, more dynamic.
It's like when you realize that both the mythos and logos are
patterns, you can then play with them because they become less
dangerous whether it be the gods, goddesses and serpents, or the myth
of rationality.
I'm not sure if I've properly replied. Ask again if I've missed your
point. I get stuck all too often.
Ron:
You get my point I believe, I think the trouble is seeing that this
is Pirsigs point. Art and science are the same, the problem is that
our culture views it as different, this is the problem of SOM. When
one begins to see that scientists are artists and artists are scientists
they only use different mediums of expression, you begin to understand
the significance of Pirsigs comments about the intellectual level.
Why he chose the symbol of the wrench in the lotus, the buddha rests
just as comfortably in an engine as it does in the lotus, it is the approach
to expereince not the system used to express it.
Art and science can be the same, science should be every bit as
dynamic as art, but is it? Scientists are as likely to be trapped in
static patterns as everybody else. We all should be more dynamic, we
all should loosen ourselves from the static, the "you should do this"
and "you should do that", the box we back ourselves into. We all
should be spontaneous and respond like the shaman. Why not?
I do think Bo is correct, the Intellectual patterns within the
Intellectual Level are objectified concepts being studied and
manipulated by an independent, separate, self-based subject. Subject
and objects through and through...
Marsha
______________________________
From: MarshaV <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2009 11:26:36 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Science Wars
At 10:15 AM 5/2/2009, you wrote:
>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.
HI Ron,
RMP has describes the Intellectual level:
In Lila, I never defined the intellectual level
of the MOQ, since everyone who is up to reading Lila
already knows what "intellectual" means. For purposes of
MOQ precision, let's say that the intellectual level is the
same as mind. It is the collection and manipulation of
symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of
experience.
(LILA's Child, Annotation 25)
I see the brujo and shaman living more from the mystical experience,
that of insight and intuition. My interpretation is that the
Intellectual Level is more Philosophy & Science's (experiment, math &
logic) domain.
> >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.
I'm not seeing the Intellectual Level and its patterns this way,
although intellectual patterns might be interacted with in an
intuitional, insightful and more directly experienced way, all
patterns, even intellectual patterns are static. The phrase I used
'moving beyond intellectual patterns' now seems a very poor choice of
words. It now seems better to say not that the Code of Art
experience is not above the Intellectual Level, but is acting from
beyond the limitations of all patterns. The Code of Art is not a set
of patterns, but a way of interacting with patterns that is, as you
say, more dynamic.
It's like when you realize that both the mythos and logos are
patterns, you can then play with them because they become less
dangerous whether it be the gods, goddesses and serpents, or the myth
of rationality.
I'm not sure if I've properly replied. Ask again if I've missed your
point. I get stuck all too often.
Marsha
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>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/
