Marsha, I agree, well stated. -Ron
________________________________ From: MarshaV <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 1:37:26 PM Subject: Re: [MD] science wars At 01:12 PM 5/4/2009, you wrote: > Marsha, > Per our cultural criteria of the meaning of the term "intellectual" which is > centered on the > axioms of the method of analytic. I think s/o is an intellectual pattern, one > that dominates > our culture but I do not think it is very accurate to presume it is the > intellectual level. > I've tried to explain this in as many ways as I know how yet you still tend > to use > analytics s/o dialectical axiom as a standard criteriea to measure > intellectual patterns > which I feel is terribly inaccurate and culturally chauvanistic. > -Ron Ron, So, you want to refuse to define Intellectual patterns as objectified based on a presumed assumption and without any evidence? Of course, you are free to do that. We're all culturally chauvinistic though, and why, again, I stress understanding the nature of all patterns being conceptually constructed. It neutralizes them all into interrelated, interconnected and ever-changing processes. The MOQ is then seen as a great map of the conventional world, and the problems of cultural chauvinism disappears. Or offer an other-culture meaning for the Intellectual Level category of patterns... Marsha > ________________________________ > 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/ . _____________ 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/
