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

[MarshaV]

Squonk prev:
If we are engaged in an intellectual debate we will, of necessity, be manipulating abstract symbols that do not refer to subjects or objects. This manipulation is an aesthetic: which is more beautiful? the SOL or the moq.

Marsha previously:
This is pure opinion. What should I say about your opinion? It's yours.

Squonk,
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 prev:
Manipulation implies a process - different patterns, same processes; social patterns also have their aesthetic. Ultimately, the aesthetic is Dynamic in nature.

Marsha previously:
You've seemed to change the subject of the debate to the direction of aesthetics. I'm not interested in this turn of direction.

Squonk:
What is DQ in our differentiated experiences if not art?

Marsha:
DQ is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.


Marsha prior:
In the Social Level this belief is unconscious, and is a belief, as you have stated, built on imitation/habit of thought/indoctrination.

Squonk prev:
If you think about it, you may realise that the very terms ‘subjects’ and ‘objects’ are abstract symbols. That is to say, they are intellectual patterns of values that, ironically, do not refer to either subjects or objects.

Marsha previously:
Objects refers to things, entities, matter, phenomenon, etc. Bachelors are unmarried men.

Squonk:
It can be suggested that the term ‘bachelor’ is a universal abstraction from particular experiences. As such there is no ‘bachelor’ for there for it to be an object.
‘Bachelor’ is hyper-symbolic.

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


Squonk prev:
This is a subtle point, but it demonstrates that intellect creates SOM and is prior to it.
Re. unconscious beliefs: If a belief is not immediate to conscious discrimination then you don’t know you hold it by definition. If you do know you hold it then it is not unconscious. Your thesis appear to be that self consciousness can only exist with the realisation that there are subjects and objects. This may be, but prior to self consciousness there existed cosmology, Geometry and Mathematics, which blows the notion that self consciousness and the intellectual level are linked.

Marsha previously:
I've already stated that from my point-of-view the way a symbol is manipulated is a part of the intellectual understanding of that symbol. I am not interested in again evaluating you hypothesis from your point-of-view when it doesn't make sense to me. Need I tell you that I am not playing to win points. I'm here to learn, and your point-of-view doesn't work for me. Explain how mathematics functions; how it manipulates and what it manipulates?

Squonk:
How mathematics functions does not change the apparent fact that it functioned prior to self-consciousness. That was my point.
If I understand what you are suggesting, you link self-consciousness with the intellectual level, and it would appear that this view is askew.

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.   


Marsha prior:
In the Intellectual Level the belief that reality is composed of self and objects has become fully conscious and built into the processing.

Squonk prev:
Self consciousness is not linked to hyper-symbolic manipulation. Therefore, it is a symbolic ‘self’ that is exerting influence as a belief. I think this symbolic self is biological in nature and is the source of the ego; it is the egos voice screaming for attention. In other words, the ego hijacks intellectuality in order to throw its weight around.

Marsha previously:
Now you change the vocabulary from self to ego? Self is an illusion but considered real as intellectual patterns. That the BIG problem. From the Quality point-of-view there are neither selves or objects, there is only experience/value/quality.

Squonk:
What I am doing is using the moq hierarchy to position the source of the self, and that source may be the ego. By a process of elimination it would seem that the ego is a biological pattern (having eliminated the social and the intellectual).
On this understanding the ego is very real: it is our biological ‘naked ape’ evolutionary heritage.

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.  


Marsha prior:
Within the process of the Intellectual Level there is a concern that the self, through erroneously held beliefs and emotions, contaminate the understanding of the external objects in the world, so the manipulation of the these external objects includes every attempt to diminish the subjective influences.

Squonk prev:
The ego has landed. Truth is a rhetorical device to ‘out-better’ other egos. Truth is an intellectual pattern.

Marsha previously:
Provision truth (with a small 't') is an intellectual pattern.

Squonk:
It may have been better had I said, ‘Truth ‘becomes’ a rhetorical device in the hands of the ego in order to ‘out-better’ other egos’.

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


Marsha prior:
Processes such as justice, H1N1, blood circulation, E = mc2 have been extracted from DQ, given boundaries and converted into entities to be manipulated in a way that explains, makes useful or controls them.

Squonk prev:
This is shifting all over the place and I am finding it a little hard to follow, but I think am keeping up. I think this description accords with the views I’ve stated, which I feel are largely those of the moq anyway.

Marsha previously:
Okay.

Marsha prior:
For me, the Quality Level represents experience without a self or objects; it represents a world very, very different than the Intellectual Level. Within the Quality Level there is DQ which I call unpatterned experience and others call the undifferentiated flow. There is also patterned experience where static patterns of value are overlaid onto the undifferentiated flow. That's all folks. Quality equals unpatterned experience and patterned experience, OR Quality equals Dynamic Quality and static quality.
Squonk: Nothing new here, but you omit the precise description of a moral hierarchy when you make such a broad statement.

Marsha previously:
Other than the provisional 'man the measure of all things', who often does it badly, I'll leave the morality to Dynamic Quality.


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