[MD] Intellectual Level

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Marsha,
I replied to you once already, regarding your understanding of self, and
I think that this is a good follow up.  I think that this gets to our
different perspectives.

My understanding is that Phaedrus didn't have a problem with subjects
and objects.  What he saw was that other people held conceptions of
these subjects and objects that were different from his.  He thought
this came from the fact that they viewed the world as arising out of the
subject-object divide.  He thought that this DIVIDE was not teh
fundamental one.  He thought that there was a DIVIDE that preceeded the
subject-object divide and that it was his ability to perceive this prior
DIVIDE that gave him a better ability to map his perceptions of reality
to reality.

But, he didn't have a problem with subjects and objects per se.  Once he
had his metaphysics of quality, quality sprouted the subjects and
objects, and the very real divide between them.  It wasn't the
Subject-object-divide (SOD) with which he contended, but the building of
a metaphysics upon that divide.  He built his MoQ on a different DIVIDE,
but still ended up with a very functional SOD therein.

see below:

On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:35:51 -0400, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> said:
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> My understanding/interpretation of the Intellectual Level is based on
> reification. The fourth level is comprised of static patterns of value
> such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these
> patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational
> analysis and manipulation.  Reification decontextualizes... 

here

> Intellectual
> patterns process from a subject/object point-of-view creating false
> boundaries that give the concept an illusion  of having independence as a
> “thing” or an “object of analysis.”

I think that Phaedrus would submit to the reality of subjects, objects,
and the boundary (divide) between them.  I think he would also argue
that it is a metaphysics built upon the subject object divide rather
than on something else (morality - I am starting to substitute morality
for quality, as Phaedrus said they were equivalent) that leads to a
false perception of the subjects, objects, and the boundary that
distinguishes/preserves them.  So, to the extent that one cannot see
past the subject-object point of view, perhaps one will be holding on to
a map of reality that is illusory and false.  But if you can see past
that pov, then perhaps your map will be ... less illusory and less
false.  Either way, I think teh MoQ is not opposed to teh reality of
subjects, objects, and the divide between them.

Oh and about "independence".  I think you like 'interdependent'.  Right?
 'interdependent' preserves identity and choice...

>  The fourth level is a formalized
> subject/object level (SOM), 

might we not use something like SOD? recognizing that such a thing is
perfectly reasonable within the MoQ?

> where the paramount demand is for rational,
> objective knowledge, 

I happen to like the word 'objective'  ;)

> 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.

While regarding intellectual constructs about the inorganic level these
things might (might might might, only) have precisely no place, I wonder
if there is a place for any of them regarding intellectual constructs at
another level.  There is such a thing as 'emotional intelligence' or
some term like that...  Anyway,

Tim

> 
> 
> Marsha 
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own