Ham:
. Webster's New Collegiate defines the etymology of Intellect as derived from the Latin 'intellectus', past participle of 'intellegere' (to understand -- more at INTELLIGENT). "1.a) the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will; the capacity for knowledge. b) The capacity for rational or intelligent thought. esp. when highly developed. 2. a person with great intellectual powers." Note that the only objective definition is a "person", since "capacity for" and "power of" are functions of cognition. Unlike "Intelligence" which DOES have a collective meaning -- e.g., "information, news," as in "military intelligence" -- Intellect and its predicate "intellection", as commonly used, refer only to the cognitive individual. We might as well begin with this distinction, since my use of intellect and intellection follows the standard usage, while yours and Pirsig's does not. In other words, for me there is no body or level of knowledge called "Intellect". Intellection is the process of apprehending facts or knowledge in a rational, systematic way. An individual who exhibits intellectual proficiency may be called an "intellectual". And since I don't subscribe to notion of Intellect as a level, intellectualizing for me is thinking about things which, as you say, is an "SOM role": Ron: Ham, I have to say, you have a decent grasp of the intellectual situation. As a matter of fact you side with Pirsig more than you know with the Statement: "Intellection is the process of apprehending facts or knowledge in a rational, systematic way." Which is socially contextual, as many differing societies exist so does The method of apprehending knowledge in a systematic way as well as the definition Of said knowledge. Where you and Pirsig tend to part ways Is in the dichotomy of self/other. Where you embrace it, Pirsig denies It's existence and posits it as a paradoxical illusion of a system Of apprehending facts. In Hindu Dialectic it is expressed in terms of Passive/active, which is very similar to Pirsigs Dynamic/Static. As I've said to Bo, there are many ways to interpret reality, Self/other is but one. My question is: Does Essentialism provide for alternative systems of perception? Or just the one we westerners know so well. Thanks Ham, some good thought provoking posts! -Ron 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/
