[MD] science wars
MarshaV
marshalz at charter.net
Mon May 4 14:32:44 PDT 2009
Joe,
I think Ron and I were talking about the four
levels: Inorganic, Biological, Social and
Intellectual, and not having another level above
them. You may think differently. Actually you
do think differently because you suggest 7
levels. No matter how many levels, I still think
the nature of all patterns as being conceptually
constructed is most important.
How are you Joe?
Marsha
At 03:27 PM 5/4/2009, you wrote:
>On Monday 4 May 10:57 AM 2009 Ron writes to Marsha:
>
> > 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!!
>
>
>Hi Ron, Marsha and all,
>
>³Conceptual pattern² is an interesting formulation for communication between
>evolutionary levels.
>
>Shit, after a sentence like that who knows what will come next!
>
>The big rock and the little rock want to roll down the hill together.
>³Gravity² is the meta-level for the fun between rocks.
>
>Organic one-cell! I feel mature so I¹m going to split. ³Reproduction² is
>the meta-level .
>
>Organic multi-cell! Hey get busy, I¹m lonely. ³Reproduction² by cell
>combination is the meta-level.
>
>Social entity! Hey! Can anyone hear me? ³Conceptualization² is the
>meta-level.
>
>Intellectual entity! E=mc2. ³Conceptualized individual awareness² is the
>meta-level.
>
>I am walking on water! ³Conceptualized public Good luck² is the meta-level!
>
>I can fly like superman! ³Conceptualized Good luck² is the meta-level!
>
>Lots of meta-levels in evolution.
>
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>On 5/4/09 10:57 AM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> 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/
>
>
>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