On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:24 PM, Dan Glover wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:37 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Oct 20, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Dan Glover wrote: >> >>> Hello everyone >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:02 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Dan Glover wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello everyone >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:21 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Dan Glover wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello everyone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:30 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:48 PM, 118 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:29 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Dan Glover wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:26 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:39 PM, Dan Glover wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The intellectual level is just thinking, plain and simple. You >>>>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> that, John. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>>>>>>>> Aren't all patterns conceptually constructed? Wouldn't that make >>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> levels "just thinking?" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marsha >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would say that within the framework of the MOQ, inorganic and >>>>>>>>>>> biological patterns are physical. We can touch them, examine them. >>>>>>>>>>> Social and intellectual patterns are mental... like the President of >>>>>>>>>>> the United States. There is no way to physically tell the President >>>>>>>>>>> apart from any other human being by examination. So to answer your >>>>>>>>>>> question, no, not all levels are "just thinking." In addition, there >>>>>>>>>>> seem to social patterns of value that are not intellectual, like >>>>>>>>>>> saying "Bless you" when someone sneezes. Those types of patterns are >>>>>>>>>>> ingrained in us to the extent that we really don't think about it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dan, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If I think "Should I say "Bless you." to this guy." does that make >>>>>>>>>> it an >>>>>>>>>> intellectual static pattern of value or a social static pattern of >>>>>>>>>> value? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Marsha >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>>>> And the notion that the Intellectual Level represent theology, >>>>>>>> science, philosophy >>>>>>>> and mathematics has collapsed into thinking about whether to say >>>>>>>> "Bless you.", >>>>>>>> or not? No, I don't buy that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Marsha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sometimes in order to make the complicated a bit simpler, we start >>>>>>> small. I mean, there are only four levels and they contain everything >>>>>>> (except Dynamic Quality), so obviously we are using analogy here to >>>>>>> order our understanding of reality. Theology, science, philosophy and >>>>>>> mathematics are made up of both social and intellectual pattens. They >>>>>>> are often cultural-specific, as Robert Pirsig points out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope that helps. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Dan, >>>>>> >>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>> In Anthony's PhD it states that science theology, mathematics and >>>>>> philosophy are >>>>>> intellectual quality patterns. So here's my understanding of the >>>>>> Intellectual Level: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static >>>>>> patterns of value such >>>>>> as science theology, mathematics and philosophy. The way that these >>>>>> patterns >>>>>> function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational >>>>>> analysis and manipulation. >>>>>> Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a >>>>>> subject/object >>>>>> conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of >>>>>> independence >>>>>> as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a >>>>>> formalized subject/object >>>>>> level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective >>>>>> knowledge, which >>>>>> is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, >>>>>> fears and compulsions >>>>>> in order to pursue study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. >>>>> >>>>> Hi Marsha >>>>> >>>>> You almost had me. I actually thought you might be getting it. But >>>>> then you have to throw a monkey wrench into the works and foul it all >>>>> up. Where in Anthony's work does it say the intellectual level is a >>>>> formalized SOM? Anywhere? Or are you like Bo, just picking and >>>>> choosing what you agree with? Maybe you and John and get together and >>>>> relive the old times. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Dan, >>>> >>>> My statement was: "In Anthony's PhD it states that science, theology, >>>> mathematics: >>>> and philosophy are intellectual quality patterns." (period) Next came >>>> "So here's >>>> my understanding of the Intellectual Level:", which clearly labels the >>>> sentence as >>>> mine. Sorry, but I don't want you, and I never stated Anthony's work >>>> suggested >>>> anything other than the the Intellectual Level being "science, theology, >>>> mathematics >>>> and philosophy". You, on the other hand, tried to pass the Intellectual >>>> Level off >>>> as "just thinking." Ant's thesis did not state that the Intellectual >>>> Level is "just thinking." >>> >>> Dan: >>> >>> But Robert Pirsig does! And yes, I know you don't allow much value to >>> the LILA'S CHILD annotations but it is there for all to see. Plain and >>> simple. >> >> Marsha: >> I do have respect for the value of LILA's CHILD, just not for those who >> would think that their understanding of its contents goes beyond themselves >> to become the measurement for what's correct or incorrect. Like it's the >> holy grail, plain and simple. Like all issues were settled on its >> publication. >> Like Mr. Pirsig isn't a dynamic thinker capable of reconsidering previously >> made statements. Like every important question that could ever be asked >> has already been covered. > > Hi Marsha > > That's an opinion that I don't share. You seem to enjoy sharing > Anthony's work with the group. So do you think that it is the final > word? And what about LILA and ZMM? Hell, why don't we just pile all > the books up and have a big old bonfire and start all over again. That > way, you and Bo can go ahead and tell us all how things are. What do > we need with the likes of Robert Pirsig anyway when we have such > illustrious thinkers like you?
Hi Dan, It is this kind of leap into the ridiculous that makes your plain and simple understanding of LC questionable. I'm not having a hissy-fit because you will not adopt my point-of-view. I care about the MoQ as much as you or anyone else who participates in this forum, and you know it. I am sure there are many things on which we still might agree. > >> >> I agree with Bo that the Intellectual Level has as its basis the SOM. Plain >> and >> simple. > > Good for you, Marsha. Then our conversation is over. Why are you > bothering to ask me anything when you mind is set? Silly. Please don't > write me again. I won't answer any more foolishness from you. I have responded to your silly "big old bonfire" exaggerated misstatement. >> >> I can agree with you that when all is said and done, 'not this, not that' >> rules. It is none of these things, not this, not that... Goodbye Dan, Marsha >>>> I have a great deal of respect for Bo, and think he is correct about the >>>> Intellectual >>>> Level being SOM. And not much for those who harassed him using ad hominem >>>> attacks. My rationale is different than his, but we are in agreement with >>>> the main >>>> point. There are many truths, and the one that I present is better than >>>> yours. :-) >>> >>> Dan: >>> >>> Good for you, Marsha. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why do I bother? >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> All patterns are interdependent so naturally there would be a >>>>>> relationship with social >>>>>> level patterns. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Marsha >>>>>> ___ 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/md/archives.html
