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

[Joseph Maurer]

On 11/1/09 1:10 PM, "mark_maxwell at talktalk.net" <mark_maxwell at talktalk.net>
wrote:

<snip>
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?

All the best,
squonk
 
Hi Marsha, Squonk and all,

I hope you don¹t mind my butting in.  If my memory serves me, when I was
studying philosophy in a monastery dedicated the writings of St. Thomas
Aquinas the subject of metaphysics was on the curriculum.  Aquinas, at the
end of his life, after writing the words and music for Corpus Christi, which
were incredibly beautiful, was quoted as saying ³What I have written was as
straw.² My sense of that was he didn¹t see much food for thought in his
philosophy.

In his writings Aquinas followed Aristotle¹s Metaphysics.  He boiled
Aristotle¹s metaphysics down to four words: res (thing), unum (one), bonum
(good), verum (true), the transcendentals.  The last two were indications
that a (will) and an (intellect) were a metaphysical necessity for Aquinas
along with (one) and (thing).  Hence SOM!

Aristotle was certainly acquainted with Pythagoras.  I would imagine
Aristotle would say that Pythagoras only understood the meaning of a single
transcendental (Unum), the word for the logic of mathematics.

Joe


> 
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 Bo¹s mistakes compounding each other and increasing
> confusion.

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:
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.
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. Marsha¹s 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: 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 Œout-better¹ each other in a rhetorical battle.
I¹m not
> attempting to reduce metaphysics to zoology by the way.

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?

All the
> best,
squonk
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing
> etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
h
> ttp://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/p
> ipermail/moq_discuss_archive/