[MD] Social Intellectual

[MarshaV]

On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:06 AM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> 
> Marsha asked Ian:
> Will the Social Level expand and evolve into something different than
> the social level?
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> It already did. It's called the intellectual level. Or rather it's better to think
> of the social level as the parent of the intellectual level because it became
> independent with it's own rules and purposes.


Marsha:
And I believe there is the beginning of a quality-ievel (not DQ) which will 
represent a going beyond thoughts as we know them.  The Intellectual 
Level will/is its parent.  This belief is built on my experience via meditation.  


> 
> 
> Marsha said:
> None demonstrate anything like an expanded intellectual pattern. 
> 
> dmb says:
> Are you saying that there are no parallels on the social level that compare
> to the MOQ's expansion of rationality?

I have no idea what this question is about.  


> Are you saying that evolutionary developments do not occur within levels?

I have stated that all patterns are ever-changing, relative and impermanent.


> That seems quite obviously wrong. Consider the difference between ferns and eagles.

You confuse quality with your personal judgements.  
  

> They're both biological and yet the latter is clearly more evolved than the former.
> Consider the difference between the chief of a tribe of hunter-gatherers and the
> mayor of New York City. They're both leaders at the social level and yet the former
> is clearly more evolved than the latter. (That was a joke.) 

From a judgement point-of-view maybe it's more true than a joke.


> To say that intellect = SOM is like saying biology = reptiles.

I understand the metaphysical assumption underlying intellectual patterns
to be of the subject-object variety.  It is deeply embedded in our psyche (habits) 
and deeply imbedded in our language.  But then I speak only of intellectual static 
patterns of value only.  I exclude words like intellect and intelligence because 
they confuse the issue.  


> SOM is an intellectual description of reality, not the capacity
> to create intellectual descriptions. Big difference.  

The most basic definition of a metaphysics is the branch of 
philosophy that examines the nature of reality.  A metaphysics 
represents reality.  And sure it described and re-described and 
re-described, but under it all they are all varieties of subject- object 
reality.  Enlightenment, it seems to me, is about transcending self and
object thinking.  

I really am not responsible for what you think.  I wish you enlightenment!!!   
But what you "think" is meaningless to me.  I have and do meditate and 
think it valuable to stay mindful (as best I can).  These experiences have 
been more insightful than hearing what you think.   

So I speak about the MoQ I know, which leans toward Bo's 
way of thinking.  And because RMP has clearly stated that there 
are many truths, and in regards to philosophy a position can be 
both true and false, and that truth is relative, I am correct to stick 
with what I know from my own experience.  
 
 
Marsha  
 
 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
___