[MD] Another parallel

[MarshaV]

At 09:22 AM 7/16/2009, you wrote:
>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

The idea of everyday experience or experience.


>that is not SOM based if you understand the MoQ.

Experience, to my mind, is outside of all patterns.


>the point is that SOM is
>characterized by objective assumptions, it's a metaphysical view of 
>all experience.
>An interpretation of experience.

Yes, an assumption made of all patterns.

>How may I provide evidence of my understanding?

That seems something you need to figure out.


>and interpretation?

If it makes sense, you find a way.


>it's the same experience interpreted two different ways.

I disagree.  There is no self and no independent objects.  That there 
seems to be is an illusion.  There is only experience.


>Both are quality interpetations, one is more inclusive than the other.
>Same words, same expereince, interpreted two different ways.

There is interpretation and a better interpretation.  It is closer to 
the truth because it states that experience is primary.


>Our grammar and sentence structure gives the illusion that it supports
>objectivism and it does if one is an objectivist.

Yes.  How many individuals are not Objectivists?  Most of them!!!   I 
want all individuals to see from the Quality point-of-view.


>But if one is an MoQer
>they are static intellectual patterns, it's in the understanding not the words
>or patterns.

I experience.



>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.

And why some care needs to be taken in how it is presented.


>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.

What?  Paragraph rewrite required...



>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.

I never said this.  Btw, is the MoQ being taught in the 
University?  How many?


>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.

The MiddleWay to me is the understanding that conventional truth and 
Absolute Truth are mutually interdependent, but I am not a Buddhist scholar.


>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.

I am happy with some time in awareness without thoughts 
intruding.  And am humbled by knowing my knowing to be nothing.



Marsha








____________

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