Dmb,
As you know, I have been told not to write about my understanding of the Intellectual Level. It was a request made in late 2010 by Horse, which you are well aware of. If the accusation of evasion is based on this, I will admit that it is a topic that I avoid. I would love to hear your interpretation of the Intellectual Level. I've asked you a number of times to explain it, but you have evaded presenting an explanation. Please explain. Marsha On Aug 13, 2013, at 7:51 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > ARLO said to Ian: > Like Marsha, you seem to think that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free > oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns. > > > > Marsha denied the accusation: > > Provide proof that I ever made a statement that "incoherence is a necessary > 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns." > > > dmb said to Marsha: > Arlo and I are both complaining about a very specific and concrete example of > sloppy gibberish. Like I said, if Ian didn't mean to equate context two with > narrow SOMist thinking, then he is a very bad writer because that's what his > sentence means. Arlo and I both quoted this specific example, among others, > wherein Ian expressed his concern for "allowing a narrow SOMist (Context 2) > view of intellect to dominate." Do you have anything relevant to say about > the substance of the matter? > > > Marsha denied the accusation again: > ...As my name was included in the paragraph, I can only state I made no such > statement about Paul Turner's theory; I never mentioned SOM and there was no > reason to put me into the statement with the "Like Marsha, you seem to think > that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma > of intellectual patterns." > > Arlo accused Marsha of evading the issue concerning SOM and the MOQ's > intellect: > My comment had nothing to do with Paul Turner's theory, and its being > 'challenged' on the basis of an implied quote. Aside from the semantic > reality that "seem to think" is not "say" or "mention", but ascertained from > the dialogue, the substance of the comment, any one following along, or able > to view the archives, will have no problem ascertaining its truth. > > > Marsha denied that accusation too: > Even if "any one following along" or "able to view the archives" came to such > a conclusion, and there is no proof that anyone following along or reviewing > the archives have come to that conclusion, that wouldn't make it true. It's a > version of the "everybody knows" fallacy where one asserts that common > knowledge must be true. > > > Ron, as he put it, "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 on May 11, 2009: > "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. " > > > > Marsha on May 1, 2009: > "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." > > > Marsha on May 4, 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." > > > > Marsha on May 11, 2010 > > "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 commented on this batch of quotes: > > ...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 argument can be made and has been made concerning > this subject matter, the contributers being criticized simply refuse to be > held to any criteria of coherence and clarity in their explanations and > arguments concerning it. They refuse to engage in any rhetorical dialog that > responds to the subject matter. ... > > > > dmb says: > > Thanks for bringing the rope, Ron. The quotes you selected are more than > enough to show that Marsha's denials are not even close to being true. And > I'm sure there are dozens more in the archives, if anyone cared to look. > These quotes show that Arlo's accusations were fair and accurate. They show, > I think, exactly what I've been saying for years; Marsha has confused the > disease (SOM) with the cure (MOQ). And it's a very simple matter to see how > this confusion of the problem with the solution leads directly to a virulent > form of anti-intellectualism. > > And it's not just that Marsha is all mixed up about the MOQ, her suspicious > hatred of intellectual quality is a foolproof recipe for being a total > failure in any philosophical discussion group. She fundamentally opposes the > whole game, simply refuses to do what this place was made for, and > consequently does nothing but spoil the party. Her contribution to the > discussions are zip, zero, nada. Unless she has an unknown medical problem, I > don't think it would be unfair to accuse Marsha of being a shameless liar. > Like a corrupt politician, she denies her own words and her point of view > even though it's on the record. > > Thanks again, Ron. I can just re-post this collection of quotes whenever the > bullshit denials start flowing out of her keyboard again. Very handy. > > > > > > > > > > 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
