Mel says: While it has been put forth that SOM is only one possible tool in the intellectual level. It seems to be a failed analogy to some. Maybe a better way to look at SOM is as a system within the intellect. It has as its best function the reductionist, the granular, the take-it-apart-and-look-under-the-hood/bonnet approach.
and continues: When we begin to buld upward we begin to see from a different place in intellect. We begin to deal not with the pieces, but with the relationships between the pieces. We begin to discover what is emergent and beyond the simply predictable. We move beyond the Subject or Object to the organizational and creative. We move from the intellectually Static to the Dynamic. We create whole new tools. Bodvar says: Thanks Mel, finally one who sees through the 4th. level's trick of presenting the term "intellect" as thinking itself. I am equally disappointed by Andr? who so easily let himself be duped by DMB, and DMB who - since he let himself be seduced by Paul Turner - has his mind jammed. Again, Mel is right, the 4th. level used the "capacity to think" (AKA intelligence - that has its Q-origin in biology) to make the act of thinking (manipulating symbols) into it's own value. I.e. those who did not think objectively were insane. Hence Phaedrus first attempt to think Dynamic/Static Quality that ended in a mental hospital. Andre: Now I am really confused Bodvar. I may be getting to a result through different concoctions but what Mel writes and what you vehemently see as support for your SOL is exactly what I have been rejecting as well!! I have always resisted/ rejected the notion that intellect=thinking itself, that our intellect (for want of another word) is far more capable than pure SOM reasoning. I have also rejected that SOM and reason are identical on the same basis and argue that it's time to re-think our definition of reason as being/ establishing cause and effect stuff. Now, I have either confused myself, unwittingly misunderstood your SOL paper ( I told you I can't make any sense of it), or completely misunderstood Mel. I have read my post again just to make sure, if there is a misunderstanding it may have been caused by the use of the term 'intellect'. We have much more grounds of agreement than disagreement Bodvar. Is this a case of 'much ado about nothing'? Andre 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/
