[MD] Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 62, Issue 93

[Jan-Anders]

Mark

It seems then that we have a different understanding of the intellectual 
level where the intellectual patterns prosper.

1 inorganic level with patterns like atoms and molecules
2 organic level with patterns like cells, bacterias and mud sharks
3 social level with walrus herds on the beach, human tribes and victorians.
4 intellectual level with ideas and isms like Zenbuddhism and Chicago 
Monetarians

People make their choice out from different level of Moral.
The chemistry professor choose a formula out from its chemical function 
regardless how harmful it will be to mankind.
Bacterias don't separate demovrats from republicans.
Any tribe can hold different ideas about fashion and proper language
Intellectual conflicts can split families and churches into pieces.

The main question is where the commanding moral for any decison is 
based. Is it in the interest of the atomic structure, in favour of the 
biological structure or for social reasons? Or is it just because I 
think it is d-d right to make that decision? This rightness is a 
intellectual static pattern. Another intellectual concept is spelled 
M-O-N-E-Y superior to any social structure.

That is how I read Lila ch 21-

best

Jan-Anders

moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org wrote 2011-01-24 21.04:
> Hi JA,
>
> I have some explanations of my premises in response to your comments below.
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Jan-Anders<jananderses at telia.com>  wrote:
>> >[JA]
>> >  I think that the purpose of the intellectual level is to deliver undeniable
>> >  truths like "cogito ergo sum", logic and mathematical connections.
> [Mark]
> By my form of analysis, it would seem you are talking about human
> intellect, not the intellectual level.  The human intellect is at the
> biological level, it is a product of biology.  All the nerves
> connected together form a human intellect.  The intellectual level
> does not deliver anything, it is a level.  By the way, cogito ergo sum
> is far from the truth, in my opinion.  Thinking is a function of the
> brain and does not point to the self.  The self experiences the
> thinking.  I cannot reveal the self any more than Descartes can.
> Logic and mathematics are forms of painting.  Things are arranged by
> our minds to create a sense of order, much in the same way that colors
> are put together to create a landscape.  Such things are not truths,
> but simply devices.  We cannot mistake the tools for the builder.
>> >
> JA
>> >  There is a darwinistic function in the intellectual level as "good ideas"
>> >  survive while bad ideas fade away.
> [Mark]
> Again, the way I would view this is mistaking the production of human
> ideas by the biological for the intellectual level.  The intellectual
> level is removed from the biological level and does not (can not)
> follow the same rules.  A good idea can survive in our heads, but this
> is not the intellectual level.
>> >
> JA
>> >  How many times have i read ch 12 in Lila? 25 or 50? I really like that
>> >  chapter. The distance to the world as "the Highland of the soul". Wherein we
>> >  can juggle around with our clear minds....
> [Mark]
> I have not read it so many times.  Perhaps I should give it another
> try.  Thanks for the encouragement!