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/
