[MD] Another parallel

[X Acto]

Hello Marsha,

Marsha:
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.)  

Ron:
 everyday experience is an intellectual pattern
that is not SOM based if you understand the MoQ. the point is that SOM is
characterized by objective assumptions, it's a metaphysical view of all experience.
An interpretation of experience. How may I provide evidence of my understanding?
and interpretation? it's the same experience interpreted two different ways.
Both are quality interpetations, one is more inclusive than the other.
Same words, same expereince, interpreted two different ways. 
Our grammar and sentence structure gives the illusion that it supports
objectivism and it does if one is an objectivist. But if one is an MoQer
they are static intellectual patterns, it's in the understanding not the words
or patterns. 

Marsha:
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.

Ron:
because all of objective knowledge supports it. Everything we ever were 
taught re-inforces it, if feels right, but it isn't.
it seems to makes sense, but it doesent.
a new level, a new language, a better model is addressing the symptoms
not the problem, the problem is the way "we" meaning society, thinks. How
"we" interpet experience. No amount of tools or languge changes may help it
it begins with an understanding about interpretation, then the static patterns
of "tools" falls into place in usefulness in explaination and understanding.
Then objective ways of understanding are limited and MoQ illumenates them
more fully in it's understanding of them.

Marsha:
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.

Ron:
Just because MoQ is being taught in universities doesent mean it's objectivism.
to confuse academia with a dominate form of understanding is lumping one
with the other. The "middle way" is not the rejection of intellect or the glorification
of it, but an understanding about it, thus, it called the middle way. to direct intellect 
toward the dynamic. toward freedom from domination from any static pattern.
to love wisdom, to focus desire not toward knowledge but toward understanding.
to develop an attitude of inquirey of wonder. of the skepticism of what we "think"
we know. the ultimate intellectual pattern, DQ. the greatest virtue.
I could'nt explain it before, but I think now I am able.