[MD] Loneliness

[Ian Glendinning]

Neither do I Marsha (think so), but Bo said

"Intellect is supposed to be a MOQ "pattern"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!."

Regards
Ian (Bye for now)

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:05 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Ian,
>
> Am I understanding this correctly, it is thought that Bo sees the
> Intellectual Level as one pattern alone.  I don't think so.  Like the
> definition of the patterns in the Social Level might be expanded to say
> 'patterns of culture that anthropologist and sociologists study', so the
> definition of patterns in the Intellectual Level can be explained by
> 'patterns objectified for analytical thinking'.
>
> It has been suggested that Aztec patterns were somehow intellectual but not
> objectifying, but like one of Einstein's thought experiments presented to
> Bohr, the measurement (the process of determination and explanation) IS
> objectification every step of the way.  What is built by objectification is
> based on objectification, and any further MoQ-like projection is wishful
> thinking.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ian Glendinning
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 1:33 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Loneliness
>
> Hi Ant, Bo, Marsha,
>
> I think that is helpful Ant, It's kinda what Marsha was saying too.
>
> If we "objectify" the patterns too much - as primary objects - we've
> defeated the whole point of MoQ.
> It's the qualty and its relative static / dynamic aspects that interest us.
>
> But Bo, Intellect is not "a pattern" in anyone's book (not even yours
> I suspect ?).
> It's a whole level in the MoQ
>
> SOM-Intellect is a pattern, maybe a pattern of patterns, but
> MoQ-Enhanced-Intellect is clearly a better one - is the point where we
> keep differing. I'm just trying find a simple language to have a
> conversation with you about the MoQ ... what it is and how we use it,
> etc.
>
> But, in fact if you see the whole of intellect as a simply static
> pattern, you have clearly totally missed the MoQ - so all other bets
> are off.
> Regards
> Ian
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Bo,
>
>> >From what I remember (from correspondence), Pirsig says (as a general
> rule of thumb), that the Quality he discusses in ZMM is the same as the
> Dynamic Quality in LILA.  This is seen, for instance, in the passages in ZMM
> when he equates the Tao in the "Tao Te Ching" with (Dynamic) Quality.
>
>> It's also worth reminding new readers to Pirsig's work that the (static
> or) conventional MOQ (of LILA) states that Quality = Dynamic Quality + the
> static quality patterns (the MOQ being just one of many static intellectual
> patterns...) while in my PhD (see http://robertpirsig.org/PhD.htm), it's
> seen that there is also a Dynamic (or the "World of Buddhas") perspective of
> the MOQ where all static quality patterns are seen simply as secondary,
> ephemeral manifestations of Dynamic Quality.
>
>>
>> I hope that's helpful.
>>
> 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/
>