[MD] Intellectual Level

[118]

Hi Marsha,

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:32 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> My interpretation of the Intellectual Level is based on reification. The fourth level  is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation.  Reification decontextualizes.  Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.”  The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner.
>
>
>
>  Marsha
>
> ___

Hi Marsha,
I am coming in late on this thread, but I thought I would address your
initial offering, above, concerning your interpretation of the
Intellectual level.  I certainly understand where you are coming from,
but it seems to me that you are diminishing the Intellectual Level to
a mechanistic premise.  I think that Platt may have the same misgiving
of such a level.  As such, you are speaking of tools within the
intellectual level, when you present the SOM analogy.

An analogy that I can present of your predicament would be to use a
fine-art painting.  Certainly one can objectively classify a painting
by the methodology used in its creation.  It is possible to break it
down into brush strokes.  We could then state that the foundation of
such a painting are the brush strokes.  However, this would be
incomplete in describing the painting, and certainly does not define
the painting itself.  Other aspects to be considered would be the
juxtaposition of colors, the passion behind the brush-strokes, the
type of paint used, and so forth.

The same can be said concerning the Intellectual Level.  One can break
some of it down into procedural incarnates, such as the use of
concepts (which represent an awareness), and the subsequent building
or cross-connecting of such things to create greater awareness.
However, such tools are not the Intellectual Level, but some of it's
building blocks.  It would be a disservice to apply rigorous standards
of truth to the intellectual level.  Such a level is a creation of
Quality, which we keep building up.  We cannot place such a thing into
a set of provable rules, like geometry for example.

Your comments to Horse, appear to be looking for a truth behind such a
level.  That is, a statement that comprises it.  As the sophists well
recognized, any such statement can be taken apart and turned on its
head.  This was clearly shown by Plato's interpretation of what he saw
Socrates do.  They used this technique to persuade.  Such an act of
persuasion, or rhetoric, was obviously more powerful than any kind of
truth presented (just ask lawyers).  Thus the battle between rhetoric,
and the dialectic as presented in ZMM.  Rhetoric is based on the
quality of expression, it is an art.  The dialectic was meant to
arrive at a truth which Plato considered ultimate.

It would seem to me, that your approach at understanding Quality is
using inappropriate tools to do so.  One cannot request truths that
subject MoQ to analysis through a dialectic.  It is a Western notion
that is incompatible.  The Noble Truths are not actual truths, they
are stepping stones.  They are noble only because they require
nobleness.  As such, Quality cannot be arrived at as a solution to
some equation, it is arrived at by altering one's perspective.  With
the new perspective, one can then begin creating.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

Cheers,
Mark
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>