Neigh Bo, On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:52 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bo before: > > > 2 and 2 is 4 in social-steeped cultures as it is in > > > intellect-steeped dittos, there are even animals that can count so > > > logic - AKA intelligence - is used by the biological level too. > > John: > > Arghhh!! Biology doesn't count, society does. Amoebas are > > biological, but too stupid to count. Cats however, know how many > > kittens they've got, as I can, and have, demonstrated empirically when > > I give one of my cat's kittens away and she (the cat's mother) goes > > around mewing for days looking for the lost. > > OK, I tried to say that INTELLIGENCE occurred with biological neural > complexity AKA "brain". So plants, single cell- and multi-celled > organisms up to a certain point were/still are as dumb as you are ;-) >
Ok where is that point as far as you can see? If you think there's a "point", please point it out. Because most of what you say hinges upon that point and yet you don't even see where it is. > > > There are stories even of horses doing simple addition for a show, but > > what they are really counting on is the satisfied relief in their > > owners face when they get to the right number. > > Maybe not, but some animals "think" and that means applying logic > including 2+2=4, they do not think by way of language "Let's see .. > hmmm, hmmm... etc" but they for sure manipulate former experience > in the form of images, smell, and/or other sense impressions. And ... > flex whatever intelligence you have ... it is this "intelligence = > intellect" fallacy that have been this discussion's hang up for a > decade. It seems impossible to snap out of the 4th. level as thinking > or logic. > > I agree that there is a distinct difference between thinking and intellect. There the point is easy to see, just point at man and that's where intellect starts. I mean, if there's intellect, you'll find it only in the human animal. Intelligence, on the other hand, begins with the perception of social "otherness" found in mammals, is my position. Which hasn't gotten much comment one way or the other... > > > In the MoQ, logic is a tool, value is the center. In SOM, value is a > > tool and logic is the center. > > In the MOQ everything is static value patterns FYI, Everything but the DQ which moves static values from one pattern to another. Isn't DQ part of the MoQ? > and as said > intelligence is a mercenary that serves all static levels. SOM (or > intellect) its latest employer why you all seem bent on intelligence as > intellect, You inadvertently put the finger on the sore spot. Thanks. > That sounds too comprehensive, when you say "all" static levels. How does intelligence serve rocks? And why do you construe me saying intelligence is the same as intellect? > > Bo before: > > > Language and logic are intelligence's tools, but intelligence can serve > > > any master. Social level people found (still find) it perfectly logical > > > that existence is created by god(s) while intellect-based people find > it > > > logical that it is a coincidence > > John: > > I'd say that's a pretty confusing mishmash of conceptualization there, > > but we're already past it so why bother trying to analyze confusion > > built upon error? Keep it Simple, should be the metaphysical dictum at > > the forefront of all our frontal lobes. Just memorize the following > > and you'll see a satisfied look on your trainers face: A metaphysics of > > Quality is a value centered metaphysics not logic centered. > > By jettisoning logic the MOQ may recruit a few lesser minds (they are > already assembled :) but that will certainly destroy it. Why does using logic as a tool mean jettisoning? Just because logic is no longer the center of things, doesn't mean its useless. I thought that point was one I, with the help of Ron quoting Andre, made pretty clear... Why - I wonder - > do you see the SOL interpretation as complicating? I clears away tons > of misunderstanding and confusion. But as the film bad-guy said after > being robbed of his newly-mixed plague: "Please let me have my > illness back"! Who wants clarity? > I'm not sure what film you refer to, but bad guys do like their plague-in-a-bottle. It's when the genie is out that things get messy. I find your SOL confusing because it doesn't make sense to me. I find it doesn't make sense to me because I find it confusing. There's almost no way to untangle such a question of "why" when it comes to rhetoric. A person gets it or they don't. If they don't, the good thing is to draw a different analogy or illustration and thus illuminate the weaker minds you deal with here. :) The bad thing is to just keep hoofing the turf in the hope that someday your audience nods its approval. Before they nod off to sleep, that is. Kinder John 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/
