________________________________
From: MarshaV <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 12:55:43 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] science wars
Ron,
We agree on much.
Do you think Mayan scholars are an exception to
the MOQ? I do not, and that is why Quality
(Dynamic/static) is so powerful. While you and
I might argue over differences because we are
each a unique collection of patterns with a
unique perspective, the overall metaphysics
holds together. And why I think that
understanding the nature of all patterns is the
key to shifting one's point-of-view beyond dualism.
Speculating that Mayan scholars "might have"
constructed a non-s/o set of Intellectual
patterns, as I see it, is not much different
than speculating there might be a Intelligent
Designer. Unless there are some actual Mayan
patterns that can be determined to be of the
Intellectual category and determined to be not
subject/object oriented what do we have? (I
never said I did not think science was
important. It's useful. :-P) Do you have
evidence? Even when scientists are talking
special and general relativity, it sounds like
they've objectified it all, even the relationships.
Leaving aside what we do not know, and
understanding the all patterns are conceptually
constructed, is the Intellectual Level a s/o level?
Marsha
At 11:47 AM 5/4/2009, you wrote:
> Marsha,
> Agree, but we must keep in mind how non
literate societies convey information.
> Ours is a literate codified static based
society, non literate traditions of inquirey
> are oraly transmitted. You see, I feel it is
more of a matter of social convention,
> our society has the traditions of axioms of
static assumption to work within and from,
> the edifice of method is so complex, huge and rigid because our language is
> complex huge and rigid. Non literate cultures enjoy a more dynamic method
> mainly because they do not have that sort of rigidity and static permanence
> in their language structure. That is not to
say that they do not posses static assumptions
> themselves the diifference being one of not
being tethered to megalithic structures
> of grammatic rules. A more accurate
comparison would be one of Mayan scholars
> and scientists, through their conquest they
established a universal understanding
> of symbols, empire creates universal,
universals are static rigid systems of meaning.
> Empires write laws.
> -Ron
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: MarshaV <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 10:40:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] science wars
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> 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/
