[MD] Intellectual Level

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Marsha,
a quick comment or three below,
Tim


On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 03:44:17 -0400, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> said:
> 
> 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.   

Is their interdependence 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,

requires... requires for what?

> 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.  

I only wonder whether I need a different word from knowledge.  I know
Phaedrus said, you know quality...  I think I lean more to a verb form
of faith.

Tim

> 
> 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
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service