Hi Marsha, Just to let you know I read your question, thanks. I have tried to open this subject in other posts, but it seems that this is the topic nobody wants to talk about. Perhaps it is deemed trivial, has already been covered and therefore not interesting, or else people do not have a firm opinion on this. I might start this up again, but maybe someone else may take a stab. My initial premise is that the Intellectual Level is not a group of intellects, just like the societal level is not a group of people. We do not think in the Intellectual Level or even create it with our intellect. It is a level, not a result of us simple humans.
I'll leave it at that. What I negate it being. It is also not a toad, just incase some think that my negation was incomplete. Mark On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > What do you mean by Intellectual Level? How do you define it? > By purpose? by function? Or something else? > > I wonder if we can imagine beyond the "intellectual level"? > > > Marsha > > > > > On Apr 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, 118 wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> Certainly everything is open to healthy and meaningful rhetoric >> debate. One must admit, however, that there are certain philosophies >> that rise to the popular top. I can only hope that MoQ becomes one of >> these. In previous posts I have analogized these to rogue waves. >> There is no way to dismiss these phenomena with logic, psychology, >> sociology, or mathematics (all intellectual constructs). >> >> For example, take the Axial Age as presented by Karl Jaspers. There >> was a sudden increase in personal philosophy during this age. A >> transformation of popular questioning of that inside rather than that >> outside. This was personified by thinkers such as Buddha, Lao Tzu, >> Socrates, and many others. In our current age, we have gone back to >> that outside, with philosophies such as Scientism. Such is the >> circular nature of beliefs. >> >> Some consider this Axial Age to be an intervention of sorts. This >> could have cycles of 2,500 years or so, if one wants to subscribe to >> this theory. I am fine with this since it can be the intellectual >> level asserting itself into the personal and then societal levels. >> Others subscribe to other things such as alien or spiritual >> intervention. I find the former more believable. Many books have >> been written about such things, of course. >> >> This OR That can be useful for meaningful discussion. If we slide >> into the unity of all, which could be considered the pre-intellectual >> level (or maybe an expression of the right brain), it puts our >> intellect in a bad light (imho). I think the intellect, although >> wrought with problems and possible misdirection, gives us meaning and >> provides much of the societal level as well. Buddha believed highly >> of the intellectual level. Jesus subscribed more to the intuitive >> (pre-intellectual) level. Each one may be describing the same thing, >> just in different ways. >> >> Cheers, >> Mark >> >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:06 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> I certainly would not want to be understood as supporting logical >>> anarchy, chaos or nihilism, but nor do I believe things are necessarily >>> 'this OR that.' Even with the hindsight of history, there might be >>> disagreement concerning meaningfulness. >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 24, 2011, at 12:25 PM, 118 wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Marsha, >>>> Certainly meaningfulness in the moment can be subjective. There are >>>> cases, however, where certain meaningfulness is supported through >>>> subsequent history. We could then state that it is possible that one >>>> thing is more meaningful than another in that context, and in fact >>>> have its roots in the moment. Otherwise meaningfulness becomes >>>> meaningless. And we don't want that kind of nihilism in this forum. >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 12:38 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 24, 2011, at 3:14 AM, X Acto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron: >>>>>> I'm sorry Dan but you do need to explain yourself if you care about any >>>>>> sort of >>>>>> meaningful philosophic discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> Most philosophic discussions are based on disagreement. And "meaningful" >>>>> is in the eyes of the beholder. Also what is 'acceptable explanation' is >>>>> another >>>>> relative matter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ___ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> >>> >>> 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
