On Aug 9, 2013, at 11:09 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote:
> Like Marsha, you seem to think that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free > oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns. Marsha said: Provide proof that I ever made a statement that "incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns." [Ron] I took a quick 15 min to scan the archives and just randomly picking from the 2009-2010 selection it did'nt take me long to find a quick summary of Marsha's point of view. If I wanted to spend a day or so I probably could reach the file size limit. But I think her last quote says it best. Marsha Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:20:34 PM "Where does it pertain to the conversation we were having? I was defending that patterns in the Intellectual Level were all of the subject/object variety. " - Subject: Re: [MD] Rhetoric and madness: At 11:16 AM 5/27/2009, you wrote: Ron, Are you asking me to for rational answers? You do have your nerve! Fri May 1 03:35:09 PDT 2009 Greetings all, Bo is correct in thinking it would be best to describe the Intellectual Level as the S/O level. It seems to me that all these levels contain patterns that represent conceptually constructed entities of both the general and particular type, and that as concepts they are all a product of a post-s/o thinking. And patterns in the Intellectual Level include the awareness of having separated subject from object. OMG, that feels good. Now it's time to go off dancing with a moon shadow for a while. Tue May 4 05:57:47 PDT 2010 Intellectual patterns create false boundaries, giving the illusion of independence, or thingness. For me understand this fourth level to represent a formalized subject/object level where the subjective is supposedly stripped from the experience to reveal an objective truth. Tue May 11 07:35:05 PDT 2010 Marsha: I understand intellectual patterns to be built on the SOM premise. >From the East: "For the purpose of discussion you can arrange words and give them meaning, but the fact remains that all knowledge is a form of ignorance." [Ron] Accept it or not, I think it's fairly evident there is not very much left to interpretation. Intellectual patterns are built on the SOM premise, SOM is to be rejected. I do not think it is much of a deduction to conclude that intellectual patterns are to be rejected. "All knowledge is ignorance" is another way of stating "incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns." Although, a coherent, clear arguement can be made and has been made concerning this subjectmatter the contributers being criticized simply refuse to be held to any criteria of coherence and clarity in their explanations and arguements concerning it. They refuse to engage in any rhetorical dialog that responds to the subjectmatter. Ian called for "respect". I remember calling for that. Know what I was told? "respect" is what someone called for when they have lost an arguement and are trying to assert control. . 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
