[MD] Intellectual Level

[MarshaV]

Hello Mark,

First: dismissiveness must be a projection on your part.  Two:  I did not 
mention Buddhism.  Three:  Nice speech!   


Marsha   



On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:26 PM, 118 wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 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


 
___