[MD] Intellectual Level

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,

It is good to hear from you.  I was a little concerned with the damage reported from Southern California's deluge of rain.  I'm happy you are okay.  I have fond memories of hiking in the hills behind Malibu after a rainy season: lush and beautiful; I could almost accept the absence of "real" trees.  And there are the many hours I've spent on Ojai's little Main Street visiting the very expensive gift shops and galleries, and then around the corner for a delicious taco and almond milk.  

My little definition of the Intellectual Level is like a Mozart sonata: perfect.  No truth behind it, only beauty.  I don't think I've ever spent so much time crafting a single paragraph.  It represents my heart as much as my struggle for intellectual understanding and is based on experience.  It works for me.  But the goal is to move beyond the entire MoQ structure.  Isn't it?  Don't get me wrong, it is seductive with its evolutionary (modern) and hierarchical (Western) attraction, yet behind it I sense a large beating heart.  It is a beautiful platform, and attracted my attention as much as those first rising red-winged blackbirds.   Art, all the way down and all the way back up.   

My approach to Quality has always been meditation and mindfulness, but that was from experiences received long before my exposure to ZMM.  -  Buddhism was a gift from this MD forum, and is where I was first introduced to the Platform Sutra, which lead to the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra.  How fortunate!!!  Between the discussions in this forum and my reading Buddhist wisdom, they can no longer be separated and are pointing together.  Quality - Emptiness, they are not different.  And aren't heart, head and hands suggesting the 'skillful means?'   Using heart, head and hands, there are no inappropriate tools.  

Dancing from one stepping stone to the next, shedding this and that from the heavy collection of ego I carry.  

Don't go away for too long.  I am very grateful to the wise old men in this forum who have so much to offer.  -  And I miss Bo.   
 


Marsha 





On Dec 30, 2010, at 12:36 AM, 118 wrote:

> 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


___