Hi Peter, I'm not sure I get your point ... but I've [IG] inserted a few comments below ...
On Dec 19, 2007 10:21 PM, Peter Corteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ian and Steve, > > you are both saying that intellect is not limited to only S/O thinking and > Steve's Pirsig quote hints at intellect including mystical experience and > intuition. [IG] Or just plain "experience" ... direct involvement in something experienced ? > > A while ago on moq_discuss I recall someone writing about deduction, > induction and abduction, where all three are forms of logic, abduction being > the most tenuous and the kind of reasoning employed by the fictional > Sherlock Holmes; this, I suggest, accounts for your intuition. [IG] Can't see how. > > As for mystical experience; just pop in a tab. Seriously though, we'll have > difficulty pinning down what we mean by 'mystical'. I once challenged others > on moq_discuss to report any supernatural experiences they had had; [IG] By definition there is no such thing as "supernatural". That's just a pejorative term used by people who find they can't explain all natural things with S/O logic. If you are enlightened enough to believe you can explain them, they are hardly supernatural. > there > were a few weird stories offered but none that in my opinion did not have > rational explanations. Mystical experiences are certainly highly emotional > and where the experiencer believes they have gained new insight, but with > the endorphins flowing and in the midst of a particularly critical situation > I am still quite satisfied that again symbol manipulation is underpinning. [IG] Symbol manipulation is involved in rationalising the experience and communicating it to people who ask in e-mails, but I think the point is that experiencing them need not involve symbols. > > Guys, if you are not satisfied with this then how do you account for > intuition and mystical experience? perhaps you explain them as ethereal > dynamic quality entering directly into the brain; top-down straight into the > intellect? [IG] No, just direct to the senses But quality is of course "ethereal" by definition - ineffable, indefinable, insubstantial, but real none-the-less. I am sure you see such a view would be SOM based. [IG] Typically yes, once we post-rationalise the "view", but not actually necessary in the experience. > > Steve, subjects and objects don't necessarily have to align with mind and > matter. Take the short sentence that Pinker mentioned also in that same > book: 'Bummer'! The implied subject refers to some awful event that has > occurred, the implied object is the person to whom the said awful event has > occurred. Steve, I think you are right that SOM's dualistic view of the > world as composed of mind and matter, God and the World, substantial and > insubstantial pose unresolvable philosophical problems, but that is a > different issue to symbol manipulation, subject object logic that I have > been talking about. [IG] The symbol manipulation is involved in the implied subject telling Pinker the story, Pinker writing it down and you and I reading it, but not necessarily the experience of the event itself. > > -Peter > > > On 19/12/2007, ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Peter, I like Pinker too, and I've seen software thinking evolve > > from object orientation to service orientation .. > > > > Just one observation on the subject at hand ... > > S/O Logic as "the basis" for "the intellect" > > > > I'd say, and have said, yes, the basis of "GOF Intellect" historically > > / in evolutionary terms ... but intellect is not limited to that kind > > of S/O thinking, forever. > > > > Ian > > 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/
