Where's the evidence?!? Oh, for Pete's sake. Like I already explained, the MOQ is a rejection of and an alternative to SOM. It is " an intellectual pattern that transcends a subject/object representation of reality". The MOQ is "an intellectual pattern that does not reify concepts, that does not create a self involved in analyzing such concepts". You're telling me I can't do it right after I just did it and with such smug certainty too!
Again, your reasoning violates a basic logical necessity. In the art gallery analogy, Pirsig says SOM and the MOQ can both hang on the wall. I imagine them on opposite walls, but whatever. The point is, when the intellectual level is defined as SOM there can only ever be that one painting and the gallery is otherwise empty. I don't know why I'm even bothering to try. You've already proven that you're incapable of having a reasonable discussion. Never mind. dmb > From: val...@att.net > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:52:55 -0400 > To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org > Subject: Re: [MD] Step One > > > dmb, > > As far as I know intellectual patterns are as I stated, and I have seen no > evidence to the contrary. Have you presented an intellectual pattern that > transcends a subject/object representation of reality, excluding art which > may use intellectual patterns but also makes use of inorganic, biological and > social patterns and often goes beyond. Where is your evidence? Let's see > you demonstrate an intellectual pattern that does not reify concepts, that > does not create a self involved in analyzing such concepts, or does not > represent the rules for such manipulation? You cannot do it, because the > minute you've begun you have divided and formed an object and an analyzing > self. > > Before responding try reading my 'Reifying carrots' thread. > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:46 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > > > > Dmb, > > > > The mind reifies; that's the key to my understanding. Here again is my > > definition of the Intellectual Level: > > > > > > The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns > > of value such as theology, mathematics, science 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. > > > > > > Marsha > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:31 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > > >> > >> dmb, > >> > >> I use my intellect all the time. I like to. It's fun. So what? > >> > >> For me the MoQ designates Reality = Quality. Quality, for me, is > >> experienced as unpatterned and patterned. - All the "talking" > >> about the MoQ and Quality are a second-hand intellectualizing and NOT the > >> first-hand knowing/experience of either. What's not to get? You want to > >> think meditation is clap-trap, then don't excited with me that you do not > >> understand. You are really funny. Here try this: > >> > >> Not this > >> Not -this > >> Not (this and -this) > >> Not (neither this nor -this) > >> > >> > >> Marsha > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:09 PM, david buchanan wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Marsha: > >>> > >>> You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see > >>> the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to > >>> miss, even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it > >>> merely insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you > >>> have responded with a childish evasion. > >>> > >>> Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a particular > >>> kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of philosophy, > >>> then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as "a formalized > >>> subject/object level (SOM)"? > >>> > >>> How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's like > >>> defining "food" as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. > >>> > >>> > >>> And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the first > >>> place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just the > >>> ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations and > >>> the like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's > >>> not to understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you > >>> use to read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just > >>> thinking. Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%. > >>> > >>> That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, I > >>> characterized your reasoning as "spectacularly bad" and "spectacularly > >>> stupid" but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise > >>> explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child could > >>> have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual > >>> substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. > >>> Insult and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with > >>> you, is there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and > >>> evidence mean absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand > >>> how you can cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction > >>> without embarrassment. > >>> > >>> > >>> Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d. > >>> > >>> Therefore: > >>> > >>> Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part of d > >>> in recent historic times? > >>> > >>> C'mon. Anyone can see how spectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? > >>> It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with > >>> it is very clear, no? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> > >> > >> 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 > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > > > 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 > > > > ___ > > > 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 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
