On Sunday 3 May 2009 5:09 AM Ron writes to Marsha: > 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 intelligence > 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 Correction
Hi Ron, Marsha and all, ³The mind² is certainly an unknown obfuscation left over from SOM. For me it is difficult to conceptualize an activity of the mind. I do not see how the analytic can discriminate evolutionary levels, society notwithstanding. DQ, though undefined, can be conceptualized in evolution. If analytic has become synonymous with intellect, it is probably because of an unwarranted emphasis on a trust in the application of the logic of mathematics. imho a shaman can see when a scientist fears to tread, as Marsha said. Joe On 5/3/09 2:53 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday 3 May 2009 5:09 AM Ron writes to Marsha: > >> 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 > intelligence >> 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 > > > Hi Ron, Marsha and all, > > ³The mind² is certainly an unknown obfuscation left over from SOM. For me > it is difficult to conceptualize an activity of the mind. I do not see how > the analytic can discriminate evolutionary levels, society notwithstanding. > DQ, though undefined, can be conceptualized in evolution. If analytic has > become synonymous with intellect, it is probably because of an unwarranted > emphasis on a trust in the application of the logic of mathematics. imho a > shaman can see when a scientist fears to tread. > > Joe > > On 5/3/09 5:09 AM, "X Acto" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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/ > > > 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/
