[MD] The strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM)

[MarshaV]

On Jul 12, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:

> Hi Marsha, inserted ...
> 
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:56 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> Based on my experience and conventional understanding, and ignoring
>> the bottom line 'not this, not that interpretation of ultimate truth,' here is my
>> individual interpretation of intellectual patterns:
>> 
>> 
>> Intellectual Static Patterns of Value are reified concepts and the rules
>> for their rational analysis and manipulation.
> 
> Ian - Yes, static / reified long enough for such manipulation and
> analysis to take place.
> 
>> Intellectual patterns create
>> false boundaries, create a division between the observed and the
>> observer giving the illusion of independence, or 'thingness'.
> 
> Ian - Kinda yes. Typically yes, in a Good-Old-Fashioned SOMist
> intellectual world, but not fundamentally, in an MoQ world.
> 
> The fourth
>> level is a formalized subject/object level where the subjective is
>> supposedly stripped from the experience.
> 
> Ian - Kinda yes, but "supposedly" is a key word. Supposed only by
> SOMists. We can (with our intellects and empirical experience) chose
> to slice and dice, analyse and manipulate the world in ways that
> represent the world in any other way we MoQists chose recognize many
> more useful appropriate patterns of value before S or O.

Btw,  Pirsig considers any philosophy that asserts that reality is composed from 
mind or matter or a combination of both is an SOM philosophy.'  

Intellectual patterns require definition and meaning, otherwise there would 
be no consensus for communication.  A pattern does not have such boundaries.   
A definition is never more than a fragment of a pattern.  A pattern does not have 
any invariable nature or 'thingness'.  A pattern is ever-changing, relational and 
impermanent.  


>> My mind is definitely subject to change.  For instance, next month I may
>> decide the fourth level should be understood as the 'crossword level.'
> 
> Ian - OK :-)


And thank you for welcoming me back.



Marsha