Bo (with reference to John Carl's query) --
On 9/12/09. 2:12 PM, Bo wrote to John:
There is nothing wrong with MOQ's level design, it's just
that it rejects the subject/object distinction as existence's
fundament, ergo there is no mind or matter in the MOQ
and what we call "intelligence" does not take place in
mind because all S/Os are gone with the wind.
A couple of questions . . .
If "there is no mind or matter in the MOQ and intelligence does not take
place in the mind", where does the abstraction of intelligence occur? Is
this not a mental process?
John had asked you to distinguish "intellect" from "experience", apart from
the assumption that humans have intellect whereas animals exhibit
intelligence "to a lesser or greater extent." (He also seems to believe
intellect has a "social origin".) In your response, you quoted your own
earlier statement:
"Patterns objectified for analytical thinking". That sounds like
an OK definition of intellect.
Well, if objectifying patterns is what the intellect does, then it is part
of the thinking process usually regarded as "mind or cognitive" activity.
Similarly, mind is the locus of experience, sensations, and self-awareness.
If there are no subjects, I assume you consider conscious awarenesss to be
an electro-chemical phenomenon of the neuro-physical system. In that case,
you are postulating "pure objectivism". Isn't that as fallacious as S/O
reality or "pure subjectivism" in Pirsig's book?
If possible, I'd appreciate an explanation in epistemological rather than
evolutionary terms.
Thanks, Bo.
--Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
John
12 Sep you wrote:
Intelligence and Intellect. Which is the level and which is the
aspect?
Help me untangle the Gordic "intellect-intelligence" knot (in the
American English language) where it seems to have undergone some
symbiosis. Intellect was never meant to be identical to intelligence.
Animals are regarded intelligent to lesser or greater extent but never
intellectual - not even the smartest chimps or dolphins. How could
Pirsig at first say that the intellectual level was "just thinking" - and
a
lot of participants uphold this fallacy - all the time it's obvious that
it's
RATIONAL thinking, i.e. the ability to look objectively on things and
shun everything subjective. That this is SOM (The Church of
Reason") and thus the 4th.level is just as plain. That LILA rails
against the C of R in its science form and shows how often
subjective-personal motifs interfere is another thing, that's to show
intellect's social origin.
Me earlier:
> "Patterns objectified for analytical thinking". That sounds like an
> OK definition of intellect.
John:
Yes. I agree that it does sound like an ok defintion. And since
objectification is SOM, it makes perfect sense that SOM=Intellect.
In that regard then, the 4th level is Mind, not "Intellect".
Are you bent on driving me mad? ;-) There is nothing wrong with
MOQ's level design, it's just that it rejects the subject/object
distinction as existence's fundament, ergo there is no mind or matter
in the MOQ and what we call "intelligence" does not take place in
mind because all S/Os are gone with the wind. The ability to
manipulate experience (memory) simply emerged with biology's
increasing neural complexity and with Homo Sapiens' huge brain it
grew enormously. OK, this - at first limited - prowess was (still is)
used by the biological level for its purpose, then adapted by the social
level for its purpose and finally by intellect to promote its S/O value.
And at this level the S/O's flourish.
Bodvar
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/
