Ron & Joe,
After listening again to the BBC InOurTimes
program ('The Measurement Problem In Physics)
that discussed scientific ideas and reading the
ideas of John Michell as shamanistic, I can see
some similarities. But the scientist is still, I
think, functioning within a fairly static
scientific environment from hypothesis to the end
evaluation of test results, and all within the
watchful eye of the scientific
community. Although, I confess, I know very
little about shamanism. Well, I did enjoy loud
drumming and wild dancing around a large fire
shaking my sistrum, from dusk to dawn dressed in
strange garb, but I also thought jumping out of
airplanes of mind-altering.
I do not think there is much disagreement between
us. Both scientists and shaman seem to use
intelligence, and both use abstract symbols. I
still think there is a difference between
intelligence and the Intellectual patterns, and I
still think patterns within the Intellectual
Level are considered independent entities to be
studied by a separate scientist (no matter how
objective he thinks he/she is).
It will be interesting to hear what Bo will say,
and others if they have additional thoughts and
concerns. Or if you have more concerns, shoot away.
Marsha
At 09:33 AM 5/4/2009, you wrote:
Marsha, Joe,
They both interpret the unknown, the shaman
utilizes the abstraction of the spirits
and intuits from them, the scientists utilizes
the abstraction of mathematics and intuits from
them, each using their sense of aestetic.
Theories, logic and mathematics are just
as conceptual as spirits, they both use abstract
symbols to divine direction and meaning
from dynamic experience to reduce uncertainty.
They differ in their methods and rate of accurate
prediction but the intent is the same.
-Ron
________________________________
From: Joseph Maurer <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2009 5:53:15 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] science wars
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/
.
_____________
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/
