[MD] Intellectual Level

Fri Nov 5 09:26:02 PDT 2010

Hi Marsha,

My opinion below.

I don't know why, but your first statement below sounds somewhat dismissive.
 Kind of like Everything you Know is Wrong.  Sure, the paradigm that you
propose is an attribute that you work within.  But it's finality is not
necessary.  This illusion you speak of, has great value.  It allows one to
do things other than sit cross-legged and revel in the interdependence of
things.  Keep in mind that Buddhism is highly intellectual in its path.  It
brings in the concept of Right Thinking.  This is a dictate (dogma) which is
based on interpretation and requires direct guidance from a teacher.  As
such, it could also be considered an illusion, or some kind of viral
infection.  Obviously, if one is suffering, then one can travel along that
path.  Or, if one wants ultimate release from the cycle of reincarnation, it
has its purposes.  But it does not stand alone as the grand illusion of all
illusions.

Intelligence is an attribute of the human mind, like heat is an attribute of
the sun.  From such comes the intellectual level as a product.  They are not
the same thing in the same way a painter is different from the painting.  Of
course, one can view the painter and painting as one, which is where your
interdependence comes in.  This is Zen.  I suppose you would label this as
the unconventional use of subjects and object.  As such, its value may be
somewhat diminished as a static pattern lying below an accepted conventional
notion of 'doing'.  As such, it becomes a personal approach, with personal
value but not universal value.

Knowledge is the result of direct experience, whether it be through words,
music, art, or contemplating a lily.  Knowledge is shared primarily through
the magic of words, and as such is not absolute.  The direct experience
needs something to act on within, whether it be a scientific concept such as
brain function, or a spiritual concept of self.   If such action is
considered an illusion, it does not provide much value.  We must divide to
understand.  Such dialectic understanding creates an intellectual level.
 The illusionary interplay of the yin and yang is grounded in understanding
and agreement, the interpretation of which is not absolute but conventional.
 Understanding is agreement either with oneself or with a group at large.
 Words are descriptive metaphors that transfer illumination for sharing and
growth of concepts.  Often such concepts are flowers, sometimes they are
thorns.  Value or quality (SQ) can be assigned to provide intuitive
direction.

Regards,
Mark

> Greetings Tim,
>
> I have no objection to the conventional use of 'self' and objects.'  These
> patterns have evolved because of their usefulness, but their independence
> is an illusion.
>
> My definition of intelligence is not confined to the intellectual level,
> but is
> the skillful use of whichever appropriate patterns (organic, biological,
> social
> & intellectual) a given situation requires, or possibly to use no patterns
> if something dynamic is required.
>
> I also believe there is a knowledge that comes from direct experience
> (insight)
> that is beyond word-bound.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 4, 2010, at 7:30 PM, rapsncows at fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>