Marsha, a quick comment or three below, Tim
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 03:44:17 -0400, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> said: > > 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. Is their interdependence 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, requires... requires for what? > 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. I only wonder whether I need a different word from knowledge. I know Phaedrus said, you know quality... I think I lean more to a verb form of faith. Tim > > 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 -- [email protected] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service 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
