[MD] science wars

Mon May 4 08:04:39 PDT 2009

Second thought:

Ron, to me all named patterns from all four 
levels are conceptually constructed abstract 
symbols.  But I have always thought you and I agreed to this.

Marsha

At 10:40 AM 5/4/2009, you wrote:

>Ron & Joe,
>
>After listening again to the BBC InOurTimes 
>program ('The Measurement Problem In Physics) 
>that discussed scientific ideas and reading the 
>ideas of John Michell as shamanistic, I can see 
>some similarities.  But the scientist is still, 
>I think, functioning within a fairly static 
>scientific environment from hypothesis to the 
>end evaluation of test results, and all within 
>the watchful eye of the scientific 
>community.  Although, I confess, I know very 
>little about shamanism.  Well, I did enjoy loud 
>drumming and wild dancing around a large fire 
>shaking my sistrum, from dusk to dawn dressed in 
>strange garb, but I also thought jumping out of airplanes of mind-altering.
>
>I do not think there is much disagreement 
>between us.  Both scientists and shaman seem to 
>use intelligence, and both use abstract 
>symbols.  I still think there is a difference 
>between intelligence and the Intellectual 
>patterns, and I still think patterns within the 
>Intellectual Level are considered independent 
>entities to be studied by a separate scientist 
>(no matter how objective he thinks he/she is).
>
>It will be interesting to hear what Bo will say, 
>and others if they have additional thoughts and 
>concerns.  Or if you have more concerns, shoot away.
>
>
>Marsha
>
>
>
>
>At 09:33 AM 5/4/2009, you wrote:
>>Marsha, Joe,
>>  They both interpret the unknown, the shaman 
>> utilizes the abstraction of the spirits
>>and intuits from them, the scientists utilizes 
>>the abstraction of mathematics and intuits from
>>them, each using their sense of aestetic. 
>>Theories, logic and mathematics are just
>>as conceptual as spirits, they both use 
>>abstract symbols to divine direction and meaning
>>from dynamic experience to reduce uncertainty. 
>>They differ in their methods and rate of accurate
>>prediction but the intent is the same.
>>-Ron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>From: Joseph Maurer <jhmau at sbcglobal.net>
>>To: "moq_discuss at moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>>Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2009 5:53:15 PM
>>Subject: Re: [MD] science wars
>>
>>On Sunday 3 May 2009 5:09 AM Ron writes to Marsha:
>>
>> > 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
>>intelligence
>> > 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
>>
>>
>>Hi Ron, Marsha and all,
>>
>>³The mind² is certainly an unknown obfuscation left over from SOM.  For me
>>it is difficult to conceptualize an activity of the mind.  I do not see how
>>the analytic can discriminate evolutionary levels, society notwithstanding.
>>DQ, though undefined, can be conceptualized in evolution.  If analytic has
>>become synonymous with intellect, it is probably because of an unwarranted
>>emphasis on a trust in the application of the logic of mathematics.  imho a
>>shaman can see when a scientist fears to tread.
>>
>>Joe
>>
>>On 5/3/09 5:09 AM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> 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/
>>
>>
>>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/
>
>.
>_____________
>
>Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
>.
>.
>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.........
.
. 