Hi Mark,
I agree that the Intellectual Level is not a group of intellects; it's not just thinking and not just a collection of thoughts. Though static quality has an interdependence with consciousness as it represents what can be conceptualized. - I tend to see the categorization into a level as based on function. 'Groups of people' is an interesting phrase, sort of a way around the self-ego problem. Still, even without the negative ego connotation, the term 'person' within the 'group of people', or individual, is a static pattern of value, an useful illusion. There are no such thing as a 'simple human' so I agree they are not the sole source of intellectual patterns, or any kind static patterns. No matter how much I admire the MoQ's evolutionary, hierarchical level- structure of patterned quality, I prefer the net-of-jewels model. It may not suit the Western point-of-view (whatever that might be), but it suits me. Marsha On Apr 24, 2011, at 4:03 PM, 118 wrote: > 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 ___ 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
