Hello Mark, First: dismissiveness must be a projection on your part. Two: I did not mention Buddhism. Three: Nice speech!
Marsha On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:26 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi Marsha, > > My opinion below. > > I don't know why, but your first statement below sounds somewhat dismissive. > Kind of like Everything you Know is Wrong. Sure, the paradigm that you > propose is an attribute that you work within. But it's finality is not > necessary. This illusion you speak of, has great value. It allows one to > do things other than sit cross-legged and revel in the interdependence of > things. Keep in mind that Buddhism is highly intellectual in its path. It > brings in the concept of Right Thinking. This is a dictate (dogma) which is > based on interpretation and requires direct guidance from a teacher. As > such, it could also be considered an illusion, or some kind of viral > infection. Obviously, if one is suffering, then one can travel along that > path. Or, if one wants ultimate release from the cycle of reincarnation, it > has its purposes. But it does not stand alone as the grand illusion of all > illusions. > > Intelligence is an attribute of the human mind, like heat is an attribute of > the sun. From such comes the intellectual level as a product. They are not > the same thing in the same way a painter is different from the painting. Of > course, one can view the painter and painting as one, which is where your > interdependence comes in. This is Zen. I suppose you would label this as > the unconventional use of subjects and object. As such, its value may be > somewhat diminished as a static pattern lying below an accepted conventional > notion of 'doing'. As such, it becomes a personal approach, with personal > value but not universal value. > > Knowledge is the result of direct experience, whether it be through words, > music, art, or contemplating a lily. Knowledge is shared primarily through > the magic of words, and as such is not absolute. The direct experience > needs something to act on within, whether it be a scientific concept such as > brain function, or a spiritual concept of self. If such action is > considered an illusion, it does not provide much value. We must divide to > understand. Such dialectic understanding creates an intellectual level. > The illusionary interplay of the yin and yang is grounded in understanding > and agreement, the interpretation of which is not absolute but conventional. > Understanding is agreement either with oneself or with a group at large. > Words are descriptive metaphors that transfer illumination for sharing and > growth of concepts. Often such concepts are flowers, sometimes they are > thorns. Value or quality (SQ) can be assigned to provide intuitive > direction. > > Regards, > Mark > > > >> Greetings Tim, >> >> I have no objection to the conventional use of 'self' and objects.' These >> patterns have evolved because of their usefulness, but their independence >> is an illusion. >> >> My definition of intelligence is not confined to the intellectual level, >> but is >> the skillful use of whichever appropriate patterns (organic, biological, >> social >> & intellectual) a given situation requires, or possibly to use no patterns >> if something dynamic is required. >> >> I also believe there is a knowledge that comes from direct experience >> (insight) >> that is beyond word-bound. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 4, 2010, at 7:30 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Marsha, >>> I replied to you once already, regarding your understanding of self, and >>> I think that this is a good follow up. I think that this gets to our >>> different perspectives. >>> >>> My understanding is that Phaedrus didn't have a problem with subjects >>> and objects. What he saw was that other people held conceptions of >>> these subjects and objects that were different from his. He thought >>> this came from the fact that they viewed the world as arising out of the >>> subject-object divide. He thought that this DIVIDE was not teh >>> fundamental one. He thought that there was a DIVIDE that preceeded the >>> subject-object divide and that it was his ability to perceive this prior >>> DIVIDE that gave him a better ability to map his perceptions of reality >>> to reality. >>> >>> But, he didn't have a problem with subjects and objects per se. Once he >>> had his metaphysics of quality, quality sprouted the subjects and >>> objects, and the very real divide between them. It wasn't the >>> Subject-object-divide (SOD) with which he contended, but the building of >>> a metaphysics upon that divide. He built his MoQ on a different DIVIDE, >>> but still ended up with a very functional SOD therein. >>> >>> see below: >>> >>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:35:51 -0400, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> said: >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> >>>> My understanding/interpretation of the Intellectual Level is based on >>>> reification. 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... >>> >>> here >>> >>>> Intellectual >>>> patterns process from a subject/object point-of-view creating false >>>> boundaries that give the concept an illusion of having independence as >> a >>>> “thing” or an “object of analysis.” >>> >>> I think that Phaedrus would submit to the reality of subjects, objects, >>> and the boundary (divide) between them. I think he would also argue >>> that it is a metaphysics built upon the subject object divide rather >>> than on something else (morality - I am starting to substitute morality >>> for quality, as Phaedrus said they were equivalent) that leads to a >>> false perception of the subjects, objects, and the boundary that >>> distinguishes/preserves them. So, to the extent that one cannot see >>> past the subject-object point of view, perhaps one will be holding on to >>> a map of reality that is illusory and false. But if you can see past >>> that pov, then perhaps your map will be ... less illusory and less >>> false. Either way, I think teh MoQ is not opposed to teh reality of >>> subjects, objects, and the divide between them. >>> >>> Oh and about "independence". I think you like 'interdependent'. Right? >>> 'interdependent' preserves identity and choice... >>> >>>> The fourth level is a formalized >>>> subject/object level (SOM), >>> >>> might we not use something like SOD? recognizing that such a thing is >>> perfectly reasonable within the MoQ? >>> >>>> where the paramount demand is for rational, >>>> objective knowledge, >>> >>> I happen to like the word 'objective' ;) >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> While regarding intellectual constructs about the inorganic level these >>> things might (might might might, only) have precisely no place, I wonder >>> if there is a place for any of them regarding intellectual constructs at >>> another level. There is such a thing as 'emotional intelligence' or >>> some term like that... Anyway, >>> >>> Tim >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>> -- >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> -- >>> http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own >>> >>> 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
