[MD] Another parallel

[X Acto]

> Marsha:
> I just want to clearly understand the above definition.  Both the terms 'intellectual' and 'intellect'  (not 'intelligence') denote an abstract, rational, objective and reflective attitude.  Is that correct?
> 
> You are also saying that this type of acknowledged, formal style of thinking is represented by the term SOM and reflects all fourth-level patterns.  Yes?

Marsha expands:
And a proper metaphysics (as in the term SOM) because there is an acknowledged and formalized attempt to strip away personal emotions, biases, prejudices and preferences; yet in doing so both the objective and the subjective are acknowledged as existents.

Ron:
Marsha, you got it. Thats what Bo means but is terrible at explaining. But this in itself
is the problem of the dominance of objectivism. Positing that MoQ do the same and
assume objectivisms place as "reality" is'nt really solving the problem.
It looks like it solves the problem, if you are an objectivist and when Bo interprets
our (myself and Daves) assertions he criticises it on the grounds of subjective
solopsism, which he fears is the doom of the MoQ, which only goes to prove
that he takes an objectivists metaphysical view. He uses objectivly dominant
explainations (dictionary and wiki definition) to support his view, but those
are really examples of an objectivly dominated societies definitions of what
constitutes intellect. aka the defect in SOM. Bo builds on the problem without
realizing it by asserting that SOM IS intellect because objectivism states that
SOM IS intellect.
What in a objectivly dominated level of thinking deems subjective and nonsense
is closer to what MoQ posits. MoQ posits that everything, all static patterns are intellectual
patterns of value, it's how we understand dynamic experience. The "thoughts come
before matter" statement. Not a solopsism. Bo, understandably, refuses to grasp
this based on objectivily dominated intellectual patterns that he is so accustomed
to holding as the standard of intellectual thought. Nothing else makes sense to him.
I just wish he wasn't so pompous about his "superior intellect" and equating himself 
as a biblical figure, THAT alone should be reason enough to give pause to his assertions.

-Ron



 



________________________________
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 6:19:27 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

At 05:21 AM 7/16/2009, you wrote:
>> Bo:
>> On the Norwegian Wikipedia MOQ page "intellect" is an active link (not
>> so in the English) and I translate:
>> 
>>    "Intellectual denotes an abstract, rational, objective and
>>    reflective attitude. To be intellectual is consequently not about
>>    being particularly intelligent, it's more to be understood as a
>>    special way of applying one's intelligence. Intellect is
>>    contrasted to a more immediate emotional perception"
> 
> 
> Marsha:
> I just want to clearly understand the above definition.  Both the terms 'intellectual' and 'intellect'  (not 'intelligence') denote an abstract, rational, objective and reflective attitude.  Is that correct?
> 
> You are also saying that this type of acknowledged, formal style of thinking is represented by the term SOM and reflects all fourth-level patterns.  Yes?

Marsha expands:
And a proper metaphysics (as in the term SOM) because there is an acknowledged and formalized attempt to strip away personal emotions, biases, prejudices and preferences; yet in doing so both the objective and the subjective are acknowledged as existents.










____________

"Compassion diminishes fright about your own pain and increases inner strength." ~His Holiness, the Dalai Lama

  
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/