[MD] science wars

MarshaV marshalz at charter.net
Mon May 4 11:06:55 PDT 2009 

Ron,

I have not agreed with Bo about the MOQ as a 
meta-level.  There's the old problem 
pointing-finger versus moon.  I think the MOQ is an intellectual pattern.

Thank you.


Marsha



At 01:57 PM 5/4/2009, you wrote:
>Marsha,
>I'm still working on the "evidence", I have a rather half decent arguement for
>this position in the works but I feel we are 
>both onto something, the realization
>that MoQ is an acultural conceptual pattern not 
>so much a meta-intellectual one
>which is my arguement with Bo.
>thnx!!
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 1:37:26 PM
>Subject: Re: [MD] science wars
>
>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.........
>.
>.
>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