[MD] Intellectual Level

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:32 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> My interpretation of the Intellectual Level is based on reification.

Dan:

To reify is to make the abstract real. It would appear (to me) that if
the intellectual level is about reification, then I should be able to
think and it would be so. Of course we all know this isn't true...
even you Marsha have to admit that.


Marsha:
The fourth level  is comprised of static patterns of value such as
theology, mathematics, science and philosophy.

Dan:
Intellectual patterns value mathematics, science, and philosophy but
they are not comprised of them.

Marsha:
 The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the
rules for their rational analysis and manipulation.

Dan:

Reified concepts are objects, or according to the MOQ, inorganic and
biological patterns of value, but not social and intellectual patterns
of value.

Marsha:
  Reification decontextualizes.

Dan:
"Decontextualize" isn't a word that I am familiar with. I looked it up
on dictionary.com but it isn't listed there either. So I assume it is
a made-up word that means the opposite of contextualize. So what you
seem to be saying is that the intellectual level makes the abstract
concrete and independent of context. Is that right?

Marsha:
 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.”

Dan:

 Intellectual patterns of value are part of the Metaphysics of
Quality... they aren't "really" there. They are provisional. They help
order reality but they are not reality itself. There are no objective
intellectual patterns of value that we can see and they create
nothing.

Marsha:

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.

Dan:
You seem to be describing scientific method here, or the
subject/object way of viewing reality that Phaedrus rails against in
ZMM and LILA. So it appears you are taking the MOQ and using it
against itself. If that is incorrect, perhaps you could set me
straight.

Thank you,

Dan

PS I don't really expect any answer from you other than more evasion
and nonsense, but maybe you will surprise me?