[MD] QRE: The 4th. level's two interpretations. Part 2

[MarshaV]

Squonk prev:
By dismissing aesthetic appreciation as opinion I feel you devalue art.

Marsha:
Within this discussion of intellectual patterns being s/o in nature, I feel it is okay to dismiss it.

Squonk:
I think this is a good example of Bo’s mistakes compounding each other and increasing confusion.

Marsha now:
You evaluate from your own perspective; that is to be expected. I your comments interesting but not influential.  My understanding of the MoQ has also been built with my investigations into Buddhism, which seems not to concern Bo.


Marsha:
Not playing... I was originally pointing to the different terms that could be a synonym for the word object.

Squonk:
Not all terms refer to subjects or objects.
You have not explained why this is so.
Perhaps this is what you mean by 'not playing'.

Marsha now:
Yes, I believe all terms do, directly, indirectly or through an explanation of their functioning, refer to a self and objects.  I have not explained, because I do not agree with your statement.  And I did explain why I thought your example 'democracy' was inadequate. 


Marsha:
No that is not what I am suggesting. I think the patterns in the Intellectual Level function as if reality were made of subjects and objects.

Squonk:
Not all of them do. Explain why.

Marsha:
I am not talking about the MoQ hierarchy, but of the nature of intellectual patterns of value. I do not find the ego to be real, nor the self to be real. I find them to be a case of mistaken identity. If the 'naked ape' patterns works for you, than it works for you. My definition of self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.

Squonk:
The nature of intellectual patterns of value are hyper-symbolic.

Marsha now:
The nature of intellectual patterns of value are subject/object oriented.

Squonk:
Re. Ego: Humans have a evolutionary biological history, and as such they have emotional states which assert themselves for supremacy within social groups.
This can be postulated as the source of the ego.
Re. Marsha’s definition of self: This can be reduced to sq patterns evolving in response to DQ.
One of those patterns may be regarded as the source of the ego, and as such it is interrelated and interconnected with other patterns.

Marsha now:
I'm not interested in discussing psychology.  I offered my definition of the self; it is still a case of mistaken identity if it is suggested that it has an independent existence.  
 

Marsha: This reference to ego seems not to fit into a discussion of intellectual static patterns of value and the level they inhabit.

Squonk:
The ego (biological patterns) may use intellectual patterns to assert itself.
If rhetoric can be thought of in terms of intellectual patterns, then one may imagine egos satisfying their need to assert themselves by trying to ‘out-better’ each other in a rhetorical battle.
I’m not attempting to reduce metaphysics to zoology by the way.

Marsha now:
I am not interested in discussing the ego.  If it is a pattern that you're obsessed with, start a new thread. 


Marsha:
I am not trying to convince you that you should adopt my interpretation of the MoQ. I have only been stating my interpretation, and where my interpretation has lead me to support some of Bo's view. I may change my mind again, if evidence convinces me to do so. But so far, your evidence has not convinced me that I am on the wrong track. Actually for me, the two most important aspects of the MoQ are
1.) That reality is Quality which is equivalent to unpatterned experience and pattern experience.
2.) That nature of all static patterns of value is that they are ever-changing, interrelated, interconnected, relative and conceptually constructed. To me that rings true from experience. My understanding as been shaped also from investigating Buddhism. I am not here to enhance my status as an intellectual or as a philosopher or as a shaman. I am here because I think the MoQ is the best world-view available, and I want to know it as more than second-hand explanation. I'm not sure what else I can add which would not be repeating myself for the umpteenth time. Maybe if you want to discuss aesthetics within the MoQ or the biological patterns you want to call the 'naked ape' you should start a new thread. It's good to have you back on the List.

Marsha

Squonk:
Well, what you could do, and which you have not tried to do since our discussion began, is this:
Explain in your own terms how it was possible for Cosmology, Geometry and Mathematics to have been used hundreds of years before the emergence of SOM?

Marsha now:
That is going way beyond the scope of this thread and my comfort level, so maybe you can first define and explain the terms and describe how they function.   




Marsha