[MD] science wars

Sun May 3 09:16:12 PDT 2009

Hi Ron,

First, thanks for taking the time.  I appreciate it very much.

I would agree with Bo that there is a difference between the 
Intellectual Level and its patterns (a category of patterns) and 
intelligence which I see more as the interaction between inorganic, 
biological, social and intellectual patterns within a particular 
immediate action.    That's about as much as I can state with any coherency.

Your last sentence has me puzzled as it sounds much like Bo's 
accusation of one's not understanding because one is stuck in SOM 
thinking. You you should go right ahead and explain how you think the 
shaman and the scientist are the same and also how you think the 
shaman and the scientist are different, but do remember that as you 
are using the terms to compare and contrast, they have become 
objectified generalities (objects).  It's an impossible task. it all 
seems an impossible task, and why I believe it better to understand 
the nature of ALL patterns.  Taking down all patterns from a 
"Reality" pedestal seems an approach with more intelligence.

If you want to hear a very interesting discussion as related to some 
intellectual patterns, do take a listen to the BBC InOurTimes, 
Episode 'THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM IN PHYSICS'.  It's about 40 minutes 
and offers a chuckle or two.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20090305.shtml

Marsha

At 08:09 AM 5/3/2009, you wrote:
>Marsha,
>I think the most difficult thing to do is leave the assumptions we 
>have about scientists
>shamans and artists we commonly hold, also our assumptions about 
>what we commonly refer
>to as intellectual patterns. It is difficult because it is how our 
>society defines intellectual
>activity, via analytic. Now one may say that analytic is the 
>beginning and end of intellectual patterns but I think they mistake 
>an abstract method or system with an activity of the mind.
>Bo often says that there is a difference between intellegence and 
>intellect, I posit that
>difference is one of intellect and analytic, which in our culture is 
>considered to be one
>in the same. Making this common assumption is the bane of SOM and why it is so
>difficult for us to view the shaman and the scientist as the same.
>-Ron
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2009 1:16:37 PM
>Subject: Re: [MD] Science Wars
>
>At 12:11 PM 5/2/2009, you wrote:
> >HI Ron,
> >
> >RMP has describes the Intellectual level:
> >
> >In Lila, I never defined the intellectual level
> >of the MOQ, since everyone who is up to reading Lila
> >already knows what "intellectual" means. For purposes of
> >MOQ precision, let's say that the intellectual level is the
> >same as mind. It is the collection and manipulation of
> >symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of
> >experience.
> >        (LILA's Child, Annotation 25)
> >
> >I see the brujo and shaman living more from the mystical experience,
> >that of insight and intuition.  My interpretation is that the
> >Intellectual Level is more Philosophy & Science's (experiment, math &
> >logic) domain.
> >
> >Ron:
> >And this is the problem. Pirsig reminds us that the both the mystic
> >and the scientist
> >  derrive meaning from expereince. The difference between them is
> > the system they use to do it
> >and their assumptions created from that system.
> >Pirsig says the intellectual level is the same as the mind, the 
> collection and
> >manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that stands for
> >patterns of experience,
> >per this explaination, how does the shaman differ from the scientist
> >besides the system
> >they use to do it?
>
>Somewhere RMP uses math, logic and rules of grammer as examples of
>patterns of the Intellectual kind, patterns that are not
>representative of something in an objective world.  But this is my
>point, the scientist takes these abstract concepts and turns them
>into objects representing Absolute Truth.  The patterns within the
>Intellectual Level become objectified.  It even seems that the
>relationship between objects become an object to study, objects one
>and all, severed from interdependency with other processes.  There
>that is a description of intellectual patterns.  My there are those
>in Science who believe that Reality can only be represented by
>mathematics, others who say Reality can only be represented by logic
>and still other who say Reality can only be represented by
>experience.  Whatever there approach they then reify the representation.
>
>So there are intellectual patterns, but there is also a type of
>thinking (a native intelligence) as action/experience.  I see the
>shaman as dynamic thinker using a native intelligence
>(action/experience) that is not so trapped within repeating patterns
>(social or intellectual), more spontaneous, more dynamic, freer,
>rational yet outside the box, etc.  Of course a scientist could also
>by a dynamic thinker, but doubt that many are.  Now that sweet little
>Einstein was a playful science-guy, a shaman don't you think?  I'm
>not belittling scientist, most are stuck in a system that does not
>encourage spontaneous play.
>
>The shaman is acting with a intelligence that is creative and
>dynamic, and probably not using intellectual patterns.  The scientist
>is manipulating abstract patterns within some existing systemized theory.
>
>Is this making any sense?
>
>
>
>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/

.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
. 