[MD] Intellectual Level

[MarshaV]

I wonder if it would best to move this post into this Intellectual Level thread?






On Oct 10, 2010, at 6:47 PM, Mary wrote:

>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 9:26 PM, 118 wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> 
>>> I hate to step into this again, but...
>>> 
>>> I see a lot of twisting of words that contain no real meaning.  
>>> A pattern forms repeating motifs, what does an unpattern do?  
>>> Is it like white noise?  Are you talking about chaos theory
>>> (which can be patterned).  Or are you talking about being
>>> spaced out on the way to work.  If you have time, give
>>> me an example of an unpattern.  
> 

> Mary:
> It's not possible to give an example of an unpattern.  That's kind of the
> point.  You see, SOM is all about patterns.  

Hi Mary,  


Marsha:
I think within the MoQ, the fourth level, the Intellectual Level, is comprised of 
intellectual static patterns of value. The way that these patterns function is 
as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. 
Reification decontextualizes.  Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object 
conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of 
independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.”  The fourth level is a 
formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for 
rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity.


> Mary:
> Explaining patterns, examining patterns, comparing and contrasting patterns.  

Marsha:
Explaining, examining and contrasting patterns that have been reified as objects 
of analysis.  


> Mary:
> By definition, SOM can't address an 'unpattern'.  

Marsha:
Right, not without reifying the unpatterned experience into an object of analysis.  


> Mary:
> The reason we have so much trouble communicating the essence of
> 'unpatterns' to SOMists is precisely because they cannot be
> addressed in the realm of patterns.  

Marsha:
Patterns of value do not have the exact, boundaries of definition and 
independence required to be examined and manipulated as objects 
of analysis.  To include all of a patterns interconnected processes would 
be beyond the methods acceptable to science/ logic which wants to isolate 
for verification purposes.   



> Mary:
> The first cut at Dynamic Quality is experience.  In the instant we've
> 'experienced', it becomes one of 2 things in the second cut - a subject
> or an object.  That's unfortunate, because once we've sliced things up
> as subjects and objects, we can no longer talk about Quality, or Values,
> or Morals.  We're hard-wired that way.  Not our fault, just our disability.

Marsha:
Not sure that I am comfortable with describing experience as the first cut. 
Maybe an Experience (Quality) is the cutting (process/verb), and reification 
follows.  If not hard-wired, then an insidious habit of thought.   

imho.


Marsha 



 
___