[MD] science wars
MarshaV
marshalz at charter.net
Mon May 4 10:37:26 PDT 2009
At 01:12 PM 5/4/2009, you wrote:
>Marsha,
>Per our cultural criteria of the meaning of the
>term "intellectual" which is centered on the
>axioms of the method of analytic. I think s/o is
>an intellectual pattern, one that dominates
>our culture but I do not think it is very
>accurate to presume it is the intellectual level.
>I've tried to explain this in as many ways as I
>know how yet you still tend to use
>analytics s/o dialectical axiom as a standard
>criteriea to measure intellectual patterns
>which I feel is terribly inaccurate and culturally chauvanistic.
>-Ron
Ron,
So, you want to refuse to define Intellectual
patterns as objectified based on a presumed
assumption and without any evidence? Of course,
you are free to do that. We're all culturally
chauvinistic though, and why, again, I stress
understanding the nature of all patterns being
conceptually constructed. It neutralizes them
all into interrelated, interconnected and
ever-changing processes. The MOQ is then seen as
a great map of the conventional world, and the
problems of cultural chauvinism disappears.
Or offer an other-culture meaning for the
Intellectual Level category of patterns...
Marsha
>________________________________
>From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 12:55:43 PM
>Subject: Re: [MD] science wars
>
>
>Ron,
>
>We agree on much.
>
>Do you think Mayan scholars are an exception to
>the MOQ? I do not, and that is why Quality
>(Dynamic/static) is so powerful. While you and
>I might argue over differences because we are
>each a unique collection of patterns with a
>unique perspective, the overall metaphysics
>holds together. And why I think that
>understanding the nature of all patterns is the
>key to shifting one's point-of-view beyond dualism.
>
>Speculating that Mayan scholars "might have"
>constructed a non-s/o set of Intellectual
>patterns, as I see it, is not much different
>than speculating there might be a Intelligent
>Designer. Unless there are some actual Mayan
>patterns that can be determined to be of the
>Intellectual category and determined to be not
>subject/object oriented what do we have? (I
>never said I did not think science was
>important. It's useful. :-P) Do you have
>evidence? Even when scientists are talking
>special and general relativity, it sounds like
>they've objectified it all, even the relationships.
>
>Leaving aside what we do not know, and
>understanding the all patterns are conceptually
>constructed, is the Intellectual Level a s/o level?
>
>Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 11:47 AM 5/4/2009, you wrote:
> > Marsha,
> > Agree, but we must keep in mind how non
> literate societies convey information.
> > Ours is a literate codified static based
> society, non literate traditions of inquirey
> > are oraly transmitted. You see, I feel it is
> more of a matter of social convention,
> > our society has the traditions of axioms of
> static assumption to work within and from,
> > the edifice of method is so complex, huge and rigid because our language is
> > complex huge and rigid. Non literate cultures enjoy a more dynamic method
> > mainly because they do not have that sort of rigidity and static permanence
> > in their language structure. That is not to
> say that they do not posses static assumptions
> > themselves the diifference being one of not
> being tethered to megalithic structures
> > of grammatic rules. A more accurate
> comparison would be one of Mayan scholars
> > and scientists, through their conquest they
> established a universal understanding
> > of symbols, empire creates universal,
> universals are static rigid systems of meaning.
> > Empires write laws.
> > -Ron
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 10:40:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MD] science wars
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
>
>
>
>
>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.........
.
.
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list