On Monday 4 May 10:57 AM 2009 Ron writes to Marsha: > 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!!
Hi Ron, Marsha and all, ³Conceptual pattern² is an interesting formulation for communication between evolutionary levels. Shit, after a sentence like that who knows what will come next! The big rock and the little rock want to roll down the hill together. ³Gravity² is the meta-level for the fun between rocks. Organic one-cell! I feel mature so I¹m going to split. ³Reproduction² is the meta-level . Organic multi-cell! Hey get busy, I¹m lonely. ³Reproduction² by cell combination is the meta-level. Social entity! Hey! Can anyone hear me? ³Conceptualization² is the meta-level. Intellectual entity! E=mc2. ³Conceptualized individual awareness² is the meta-level. I am walking on water! ³Conceptualized public Good luck² is the meta-level! I can fly like superman! ³Conceptualized Good luck² is the meta-level! Lots of meta-levels in evolution. Joe On 5/4/09 10:57 AM, "X Acto" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ 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/
