[MD] Step One

[MarshaV]

On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:24 PM, Dan Glover wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:37 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Hi Marsha
> 
> That's an opinion that I don't share. You seem to enjoy sharing
> Anthony's work with the group. So do you think that it is the final
> word? And what about LILA and ZMM? Hell, why don't we just pile all
> the books up and have a big old bonfire and start all over again. That
> way, you and Bo can go ahead and tell us all how things are. What do
> we need with the likes of Robert Pirsig anyway when we have such
> illustrious thinkers like you?


Hi Dan,

It is this kind of leap into the ridiculous that makes your plain and simple 
understanding of LC questionable.  I'm not having a hissy-fit because you 
will not adopt my point-of-view.  I care about the MoQ as much as you or 
anyone else who participates in this forum, and you know it.  I am sure there 
are many things on which we still might agree. 


> 
>> 
>> I agree with Bo that the Intellectual Level has as its basis the SOM.  Plain and
>> simple.
> 
> Good for you, Marsha. Then our conversation is over. Why are you
> bothering to ask me anything when you mind is set? Silly. Please don't
> write me again. I won't answer any more foolishness from you.

I have responded to your silly "big old bonfire" exaggerated misstatement.  


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

It is none of these things, not this, not that...    


Goodbye Dan,


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
>>>>>> 


 
___