[MD] Another parallel

[MarshaV]

At 07:48 AM 7/16/2009, you wrote:
> > 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

Ron,

The problem of discussing it is at least the overlaying a 
subject-object language on every statement.  (Where is your evidence 
[Mon, 4 May 2009 10:57:00 -0700] of the existence of an intellectual 
pattern that is other than objective?  You said that you were 
developing an argument.)  Using our language, it is difficult not to 
sound absurd no matter what you say.  Bo's lifting the MoQ out of the 
fourth level seems to represent an appropriate paradigm shift.  From 
this new level, maybe a new language, a better model and new tools 
will be developed.  I am not absolutely convinced, but I have a very 
strong feeling that Bo is on the right track, and I have not thought 
of a better way to represent the MoQ.

I consider Bo's concern to be one for the future of the MoQ.  With so 
many years of confusion over the Intellectual Level, I think his 
solution is best.  Dmb seems to me to be in University mode and is 
projecting too much academic assumption.  It all sounds very 
"academic" but seems to me not stand on its own.  I've enjoyed 
hearing about Radical Empiricism and Pragmaticism, but I am more 
inclined to think that the MoQ has gone beyond them both.  Of course, 
I came to a better understanding (I think) of the MoQ through my 
effort to understand Buddhism's Emptiness and the MiddleWay .  That 
may be my prejudice.


Marsha




>_______________________________
>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/
>
>
>
>
>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/



____________

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