> Peter replied to Platt:
> It seems completely inane to me to say that
> intellect has no role in determining what is good.
>
> After Platt said:
> "What is the role of intellect in determining what
> is good?" My answer: "None."
>
> dmb says:
> There is a reason it seems inane. What if we're
> trying to determine the goodness of something
> intellectual, something like a philosophy? Wouldn't
> intellect play a role there? A purely rational
> assessment isn't really possible and we shouldn't
> try even if it were. There's always has to be more
> than just cold logic going on, but to say that
> intellect plays no role is just silly. I think this
> position is a reflection of Platt's right-wing
> anti-intellectualism rather than the MOQ.
I said somewhere along the way in reference to
Platt and with Peter's comment in mind, that the
intellect can't define what is good.
The context of my assertion here is that intellect
alone doesn't define the larger context of reality,
which includes other levels plus dynamic quality.
Yet, dmb, you are being specific to intellectual roles
of helping inquire what is good, and the way you put
it here, I agree. Intellect can define what is good
better than any other level when it comes to
intellectual patterns. Intellectual patterns can
define other levels and dq, but in this case,
intellect will fall short in what the experience of
the other levels can provide in answering what is good
when it comes to those other levels specifically.
Now... what does Platt mean?
blue sky, gray went away,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
