Marsha,
I think the most difficult thing to do is leave the assumptions we have about 
scientists
shamans and artists we commonly hold, also our assumptions about what we 
commonly refer
to as intellectual patterns. It is difficult because it is how our society 
defines intellectual
activity, via analytic. Now one may say that analytic is the beginning and end 
of intellectual patterns but I think they mistake an abstract method or system 
with an activity of the mind.
Bo often says that there is a difference between intellegence and intellect, I 
posit that 
difference is one of intellect and analytic, which in our culture is considered 
to be one
in the same. Making this common assumption is the bane of SOM and why it is so
difficult for us to view the shaman and the scientist as the same.
-Ron




________________________________
From: MarshaV <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2009 1:16:37 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Science Wars

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?


      
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/

Reply via email to