[MD] Intellectual level

[Jan-Anders]

Hi Marsha

RMP's distinction in the Inorganic, the Biologic, the Social and the 
Intellectual level is just the answer of this question: In who's interest?

Anything thats not in the interest of the inorganic, the biologic or the 
social is therefore in the interest of the intellectual level. Or in the 
interest of the DQ itself. Languages, norms, traditions, values etc, as 
static or dynamic pieces of quality.

My car broke down on monday, my horse got sick on tuesday, wednesday evening my daughter came home drunk, today my son bought an iPhone and I have to read through all the fineprint to help him how to install it. Tomorrow we'll have a new years party and we are out of beer and one of the guest are an active buddhist that refuses to eat the grilled fillet of beef... is this quality?

Sure it is:-)

Happy New Year Ladies and Gentlemen!

PS Here is a nice portrait of the whole MD group, you guess who's who. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0o2rrRZ0Vs

Jan-Anders


moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org skrev 2010-12-30 20.01:
> On Dec 30, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Platt Holden wrote:
>
>> >  On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:17 AM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net>  wrote:
>> >  
>>> >>  
>>> >>  On Dec 30, 2010, at 9:48 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:
>>> >>  
>>>> >>>  [Marsha]
>>>> >>>  Language, with it grammatical rules, has most certainly evolved to
>>> >>  reflect
>>>> >>>  humanities subject-object metaphysical underpinning.
>>>> >>>  
>>>> >>>  [Arlo]
>>>> >>>  "Grammatical rules" have nothing to do with SOM. Does Western language
>>> >>  reveal
>>>> >>>  an SOM-bias in areas where SOM is the dominant intellectual pattern?
>>> >>  Sure. But
>>>> >>>  "language" itself is not "SOM".
>>>> >>>  
>>> >>  
>>> >>  Marsha:
>>> >>  Nowhere did I explicitly state that language was SOM.  It does, though,
>>> >>  implicitly
>>> >>  suggest a subject-object metaphysical underpinning.
>>> >>  
>> >  
>> >  Platt
>> >  Right. The SOM premise is self-evident and thus invisible to the
>> >  intellectual level of patterns. .
>> >  Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Hi Platt,
>
> I know.  It's so ingrained and habitual it is almost impossible to see it.  My
> second realization on this subject came when my grandson was very small
> and just learning his first words.  He was so sweet.  I took him outside on a
> beautiful summer day to introduce him to his yard.  "These are flowers.
> These are leaves.  This is a branch.  This is a tree trunk.  And this whole big
> thing is a tree.  And there's another."  OMG!  I was indoctrinating him into our
> subject-object world view.   Will I ever have the chance to put him and all
> these things back together again?
>
> Humpty Dumpty. Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
> All the king's horses and all the king's men, Couldn't put Humpty back together
> again.
>
>
> Marsha