Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Chris and Krimmel > > On 8 March Chris wrote: > > > Uhm. Well, but what is called intelligence is boiled down to "using > > your mind" Observing things, drawing conclusions etc. Surely you see > > how this springs from the idea of mind as a separate entity. This is > > really what the practice of Zen is trying to bash. I don't see the > > conflict. > > I believe we say the same thing. "Intelligence" is using brain, but not > necessarily for intellectual purposes. When "my" craw sits on the > ground tilting its head at the (small) bird's food, it clearly "observes > things" and in its brain the logical circuits "draws conclusions", but this > is intelligence in biology's service (finding food primarily) , but during > the Q-evolution this original biological pattern became adopted by the > social and an intellectual levels in turn. But while biology and society > don't know any inner/outer split, intellect's sees everything through its > S/O glasses; To it brain is matter and its "conclusions" is mind, thus at > the 4th level the terms (intelligence and intellect) are confused , both > are the mental fallout of brain's workings. > > > You see this intellectual fallacy with Krimel > > > Not to step on Marsha's toes here but your assessment above strikes me as > > deeply confused. Reason is no less a subjective process than emotion. They > > are both modes that individual subjects have available for apprehending > > and processing information about the external, objective world. > > He thinks that "all is subjective" is some profound revelation that no- > one has discovered, he has no inkling that this is intellect's eternal > see-saw: To the materialist intellect (mind) assess the external world > objectively, to the Subjectivist the external world is mind too. There is > nothing but intellect!!!! This SOM-induced dead end is what the MOQ > upends, but no-one seems to have noticed and think along the old > beaten path. "Christ, it ain't easy" as John Lennon sings.
Bo's commentary appears to me to be a fine example of meta-intellect, that is thinking about thinking. What the MOQ offers with its moral world and patterns of values is a meta way of thinking that subsumes, but doesn't eliminate, our usual SOM thinking. What do you think? Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
