Williston, North Dakota is an exotic and wonderful place to me, Marsha. I can't even imagine New York City. *shivers*
Every day a new Ad-Venture. Marsha: Fly flecks! - If attacking an opponent is their only defense, then one hasn't really been pounded. John: Well, yay. And I see what you mean. You have to really care about the root of the particular criticism, in order for it have any impact. And when you understand the patterns at hand but are uncaught by them, then any "pounding" just floats on by. A boxing glove vs. a spider floating on a slender but unbreakable thread. > John: > I don't consider you mean-spirited at all. Contrary and > stubborn at times? Yes! But that's not the same thing as mean-spirited. I > dislike mean spirits, but I oft appreciate the contrarian. Marsha: Contrary to who? Contrary to what? John: Contrary to things and those that irk you. Which is only logical, I admit. But you'd be surprised at how many people conform to patterns that irk them. I appreciate contrarians and consider myself one as well. So don't take it as negatively intended. Marsha: Certainly not contrary to my own experience and understanding. Certainly not contrary to an authority since there is no authority on this list but the text and one's interpretation of that text. John: I understand and agree. Marsha: You can present your argument again, but in the past it didn't resonate as correct to my experience. I seem to remember you trying to link the I-level to art. John: Yes. That I have done and will do. 'Tis the key to the whole shootin' match, imo. the self-reflection of consciousness through the mechanism of the bifurcated brain. The key to self realization is a self with two aspects which can reflect each other and thus intellectually know. Marsha: RMP has stated that art is a mixture of all four levels with Dynamic Quality. That works for me. John: Art is always a realization. We interpret that patterning we deem artistic, and it's as high-order processing as any merely intellectual enterprise. At the roots, rationality is an art. A certain aesthetic dictated the decisions of logic, consistency and coherence that pleased people. Liking something because its popular is society's training, but creating and recognizing an aesthetic experience because it speaks to us of something inside, that I term 4th level experience. It's more than intellect can encapsulate, which is why I don't like the term "intellectual" for the 4th level and feel the 4th level should explicitly be known as a dualistic level - a romantic/classic fusion of art and science together, in the same room, sharing the same bed. That's my opinion. Marsha: Maybe you understand it related to the intellectual level because your art is words. My definition of the Intellectual Level as being made up of som patterns seems best from my point-of-view, while art is all levels with the spontaneous dynamic guiding the way. John: Well, as to my art being words... I'll agree to an extent. It's what I care about most deeply of all expression. On many levels, true. But that's my expression. My appreciation knows no such boundaries. Music, images and feelings bound up with both, intertwined with words and concepts, impact my life and my meanings, even when I don't express myself along those lines well, I hear and understand on those lines just fine and I think appreciation makes us just as much "artistic" as does craft and ability. But I admit the freedom to see things our own way is fundamental. For instance, I was walking down the street today and I saw two squirrels, running round and round and round a tree and I thought to myself, "how do they know who is chasing who?, and whether they are circling the tree, or is the tree encircling them?" And then they stopped running and one of them started humping the other and I knew, which one was chasing which. And I thought to myself, if W. James had seen TWO squirrels, he might have come up with a better metaphysics. John On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: Greetings John, On May 25, 2011, at 12:05 PM, John Carl wrote: > John: > Furthermore, it seems to my > recollection that when you originally flip-flopped on your support for Bo, > the reason you gave was chiefly that he'd been loyal for so long. Then came > the intellectual justification for your emotional reaction. Now I don't > criticize that process, in fact, I think it's honestly the only way we do > things. We always rationalize what we really want emotionally. Which is > why I don't think the 4th level can rightly be termed "intellectual". Marsha: I might have defended Bo because of his loyalty to the MD, but that was not the reason I came to believe Bo is correct. I was backed into a corner, he backed me into a corner, and I was struck wordless. I realized that conceptualization reifies. I didn't know the word then, but I clearly understood the process. Only later did I stumble across the word 'reify' and after reading it a number of times I recognized it as the process from which I couldn’t escape (except through mindfulness/meditation and sometimes painting.) Of course then the word ‘reification’ was everywhere. I’ve since looked back to prior reading to discover the word was there from the beginning, but it didn’t register. I am grateful to Bo for his tenacity. - It was not mere rationalization but a forceful experience. The realization made me laugh long and hard. It still makes me laugh. 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
