[MD] e: Reading & Comprehension

[MarshaV]

On May 12, 2010, at 7:17 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Arlo previously]
> ".. all intellectual patterns are SOM."
> 
> "Intellectual patterns are misconceived as independent self and other".
> 
> These two sentences say the exact same thing.
> 
> SOM = conceived as independent self and other.
> 
> Hence, all intellectual patterns are misconceived as independent self and other.
> 
> [Marsha]
> I agree the two sentences may seem similar, but they are not the same.  
> 
> [Arlo]
> Explain to me then what SOM means if NOT "misconceived as independent self and
> other". This is precisely what SOM is.

Marsha:
I am not going to explain in a negative form.  

I consider Bo correct in labeling the Intellectual Level SOM because Intellectual 
Static Patterns of Value are reified concepts and the rules for their manipulation.  
Intellectual patterns create false boundaries, giving the illusion of independence, 
or 'thingness'. The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level where the 
subjective is supposedly stripped from the experience. 


> 
> [Arlo previously]
> Again, if this is the case... if ALL intellect is SOM by definition... then
> where is the conflict in ZMM between the Sophists and Aristotle? BOTH were
> peddling SOM.
> 
> [Marsha]
> I am presently not prepared to discuss the Sophists versus Aristotle;  I don't
> get your point.
> 
> [Arlo]
> You don't get my point? If ALL intellect is SOM, then both the Sophists AND
> Aristotle were peddling SOM, so where is the conflict between the two? What's
> the point of ZMM in BOTH were pushing a SOM? 

Marsha:
We're all peddling in a s/o format, so why the shock?  The point of ZMM and 
LILA is, in my opinion, to point to what is beyond SOM.  The MoQ represents both  
1.) Reality = Quality, and 2.)  a theoretical structure to get us there.  


 
___