> Joe, > > I think Ron and I were talking about the four > levels: Inorganic, Biological, Social and > Intellectual, and not having another level above > them. You may think differently. Actually you > do think differently because you suggest 7 > levels. No matter how many levels, I still think > the nature of all patterns as being conceptually > constructed is most important. > > How are you Joe? > > > Marsha Hi Marsha,
I agree ³conceptual construction² is necessary. Bo describes the Taliban as conceptualizing only at the social level. I wondered how they talk to each other. The image of someone with a stick beating the back of a woman spread-eagled on the ground is not conducive to communication. Mathematics is found at all levels. imho The temptation to conceptualize everything from a mathematical perspective negates evolution. I think I am doing fine. When, as kids, we parodied the song ³Going To Take a Sentimental Journey² as ³Going To Take a Seventy-Mental Journey² I was not thinking of a more mature outlook. Things change! Dan is a good writer, and his story was compelling. Thanks, for your concern. Joe On 5/4/09 2:32 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Joe, > > I think Ron and I were talking about the four > levels: Inorganic, Biological, Social and > Intellectual, and not having another level above > them. You may think differently. Actually you > do think differently because you suggest 7 > levels. No matter how many levels, I still think > the nature of all patterns as being conceptually > constructed is most important. > > How are you Joe? > > > Marsha > > > > > At 03:27 PM 5/4/2009, you wrote: >> 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/ > > . > _____________ > > 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/
