[MD] Loneliness

Sat Sep 12 01:27:40 PDT 2009

Hi Bo,

I think the question is has there ever been patterns that were a type of
analytical, abstract manipulation that was not been involved with s/o
objectification?  You could ask the question a few ways:  Has there ever
been patterns that were a type of analytical, abstract manipulation that
represented interconnect processes rather than objects? I have often been
accused of over-complicating, but I think the honest answer is at the very
least 'I don't know'.  Or, are our cultural glasses so blinding us that we
are missing other ways of having gone beyond the Social Level?  Does having
created Quantum physics, the nuclear bomb and free-market capitalism put us
at the top of the heap?  I think the MoQ's Intellectual Level, as being
patterns objectified for analytical thinking, representing the dominant mode
that has developed in the West and has spread, and is spreading, its
influence everywhere. 

Should we chase down every genius savant whose brain developed differently,
and might represent an exception?     

Marsha 

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
skutvik at online.no
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 3:11 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Loneliness

Marsha & Ian

11 Sep:

Marsha:
> > 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'.

"Patterns objectified for analytical thinking". That sounds like an OK 
definition of intellect. 

> > 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.

The Aztecs surely were as intelligent as ourselves (no great feat) but 
had not started on any intellectual development. They were totally 
immersed in their mythology.   

Ian
> Neither do I Marsha (think so), but Bo said "Intellect is supposed to
> be a MOQ "pattern" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" 

Everything you say may be used against you. I just said "Intellect is 
supposed to be a MOQ pattern" because it somehow fit with " MOQ an 
intellectual pattern", but I did of course mean "Intellect is supposed to 
be a MOQ level".

Bodvar

> 
> Regards
> Ian (Bye for now)
> 
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:05 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> >
> > Ian,
> >

> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> 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/