[MD] Step One

[MarshaV]

On Oct 20, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Dan Glover wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:02 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Dan Glover wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello everyone
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:21 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hello everyone
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:30 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:48 PM, 118 wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:29 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Dan Glover wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:26 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:39 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The intellectual level is just thinking, plain and simple. You know
>>>>>>>> that, John.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>>>>>>> Aren't all patterns conceptually constructed?  Wouldn't that make all
>>>>>>>> levels "just thinking?"
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Marsha
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I would say that within the framework of the MOQ, inorganic and
>>>>>>>>> biological patterns are physical. We can touch them, examine them.
>>>>>>>>> Social and intellectual patterns are mental... like the President of
>>>>>>>>> the United States. There is no way to physically tell the President
>>>>>>>>> apart from any other human being by examination. So to answer your
>>>>>>>>> question, no, not all levels are "just thinking." In addition, there
>>>>>>>>> seem to social patterns of value that are not intellectual, like
>>>>>>>>> saying "Bless you" when someone sneezes. Those types of patterns are
>>>>>>>>> ingrained in us to the extent that we really don't think about it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dan,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If I think "Should I say "Bless you." to this guy." does that make it an
>>>>>>>> intellectual static pattern of value or a social static pattern of value?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mark:
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>>> And the notion that the Intellectual Level represent theology, science, philosophy
>>>>>> and mathematics has collapsed into thinking about whether to say "Bless you.",
>>>>>> or not?   No, I don't buy that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Marsha
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sometimes in order to make the complicated a bit simpler, we start
>>>>> small. I mean, there are only four levels and they contain everything
>>>>> (except Dynamic Quality), so obviously we are using analogy here to
>>>>> order our understanding of reality. Theology, science, philosophy and
>>>>> mathematics are made up of both social and intellectual pattens. They
>>>>> are often cultural-specific, as Robert Pirsig points out.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I hope that helps.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> In Anthony's PhD it states that science theology, mathematics and philosophy are
>>>> intellectual quality patterns. So here's my understanding of the Intellectual Level:
>>>> 
>>>> The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such
>>>> as science theology, mathematics and philosophy. 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 like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions
>>>> in order to pursue study and research in an unbiased and rational manner.
>>> 
>>> Hi Marsha
>>> 
>>> You almost had me. I actually thought you might be getting it. But
>>> then you have to throw a monkey wrench into the works and foul it all
>>> up. Where in Anthony's work does it say the intellectual level is a
>>> formalized SOM? Anywhere? Or are you like Bo, just picking and
>>> choosing what you agree with? Maybe you and John and get together and
>>> relive the old times.
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Dan,
>> 
>> My statement was:  "In Anthony's PhD it states that science, theology, mathematics:
>> and philosophy are intellectual quality patterns."  (period)  Next came "So here's
>> my understanding of the Intellectual Level:", which clearly labels the sentence as
>> mine.  Sorry, but I don't want you, and I never stated Anthony's work suggested
>> anything other than the the Intellectual Level being "science, theology, mathematics
>> and philosophy".   You, on the other hand, tried to pass the Intellectual Level off
>> as "just thinking."  Ant's thesis did not state that the Intellectual Level is "just thinking."
> 
> Dan:
> 
> But Robert Pirsig does! And yes, I know you don't allow much value to
> the LILA'S CHILD annotations but it is there for all to see. Plain and
> simple.

Marsha:
I do have respect for the value of LILA's CHILD, just not for those who 
would think that their understanding of its contents goes beyond themselves 
to become the measurement for what's correct or incorrect.  Like it's the 
holy grail, plain and simple.  Like all issues were settled on its publication.  
Like Mr. Pirsig isn't a dynamic thinker capable of reconsidering previously 
made statements.  Like every important question that could ever be asked 
has already been covered.   

I agree with Bo that the Intellectual Level has as its basis the SOM.  Plain and 
simple.   

I can agree with you that when all is said and done, 'not this, not that' rules.  


Marsha 



> 
>> 
>> I have a great deal of respect for Bo, and think he is correct about the Intellectual
>> Level being SOM.  And not much for those who harassed him using ad hominem
>> attacks.  My rationale is different than his, but we are in agreement with the main
>> point.  There are many truths, and the one that I present is better than yours.   :-)
> 
> Dan:
> 
> Good for you, Marsha.
> 
> Dan
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Why do I bother?
>>> 
>>> Dan
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> All patterns are interdependent so naturally there would be a relationship with social
>>>> level patterns.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 


 
___