Marsha,
I'm still working on the "evidence", I have a rather half decent arguement for
this position in the works but I feel we are
both onto something, the realization
that MoQ is an acultural conceptual pattern not
so much a meta-intellectual one
which is my arguement with Bo.
thnx!!
________________________________
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/
