On 1/17/10, 2:41 PM, David Thomas said something of critical importance:
The key point is "individual".
Intellects are only present in individuals.
The intellectual level emerged out of, is dependent on,
and was preceded by social groups. So what I think
we have with "intellect" is the same problem we had
with "social". Individual social characteristics, qualities,
values go deep into the biological level. Only when
humans evolved sufficient numbers and types of social
qualities did the Social Level emerge.
MoQers take note.
I cannot stress this too much.
Whatever you say about "levels," Awareness, Value, Experience, Intellect,
and Society all hang on the INDIVIDUAL. The INDIVIDUAL is the Knower of it
all. Such is the structure of existential reality.
Thank you, Dave, for this incisive and illuminating response to Bo.
--Ham
[Bo before]:
Whoa yourself Dave, the use of "intellect" as synonymous with
"intelligence" is MOQ's very problem. Intelligence is merely (not
merely, yet ..) the biological brain computing power, while intellect is
the 4th. level (in my now well known opinion). The 4th. level employs
intelligence like the 3rd before it. Had Pirsig not used "intellect" in
the
same breath as intelligence (IQ) all would have been fine.
[Dave]:
Based on just this one, first, mention of "intellect" I don't believe RMP
is
using it synonymously with "intelligence" and neither am I. Quite the
opposite. But neither am I accepting your definition of intellect. Let me
reword RMP again to see if we can get closer.
Human intellect (now) is not much different in intelligence (its basic
biological structure rooted in genetics and environmental factors) or its
intelligence quotient (the modern attempt to measure the variable "power"
of
intelligence individual to individual) than it was in ancient man. IMHO
modern science in general agrees with this and only argues about just when
this occurred historically.
How intellect differed between modern man and ancient man is their
different
"concept(s) of thought". Their "metaphysics" if you will. What they each
though was "real". Ghosts of ancestors were "real" to Indians prior to
European contact. Just like God is "real" to many people today. As the
passionate flaming in the other threads and wars around the world
demonstrate.
[Dave before]:
If we do your: "ambiguous as if there is an intellect of pre-modern
man" concern goes away.
[Bo before]:
Well, I'm still worried about the sloppy use of "intellect". The term
indicates (according to my dictionary) the ability to distinguish
between reason (objectivity) and emotion (subjectivity) i.e. SOM,
while - again - "intelligence" can be all kinds of aptitudes. If this is
observed everything falls in place.
[Dave]
Ok, Let's un-slop it.
Your dictionary, as I recall, has the word "Oxford" in it. We Americans
took
up arms to divorce ourselves from those English tyrants. ;-)
I have my copy of the Webster Collegiate Dictionary that was give to me as
high school graduation present 1962 and a newer one published in 1974 that
I
bought on in the Montana State campus bookstore when returning to college
there after Vietnam. I believe they are more appropriate sources. I have
checked them against the Websters Online version and they are nearly
identical so I used it for cut and paste convenience.
Main Entry: in·tel·lect
Pronunciation: \ˈin-tə-ˌlekt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French,
from
Latin intellectus, from intellegere to understand — more at intelligent
Date: 14th century
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 especially when highly developed
2 : a person with great intellectual powers
The first definition say, "the power of knowing" the "capacity for
knowledge". (I see the feeling and willing, read on Bo) Only when we get
to
the second entry does the word "rational" show up. If we turn to the
etymology we find Latin- to understand. And if we trace the etymology back
we find.
Etymology: Latin intelligent-, intelligens, present participle of
intelligere, intellegere to understand, from inter- + legere to gather,
select — more at legend
Etymology: Middle English legende, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin;
Anglo-French legende, from Medieval Latin legenda, from Latin, feminine of
legendus, gerundive of legere to gather, select, read; akin to Greek
legein
to gather, say, logos speech, word, reason.
So if we trace the roots on intellect back we find: to understand, to
gather-select, to gather-select-read, all of which are AKIN TO the Greek:
To gather, say, logos speech, word, and finally at the tail end of the
list
even to the Greeks, REASON is the last and only ONE of the root
definitions
of INTELLECT.
So, as we all know, Pirsig traced, rightly, the "concept of thought" in
the
Western World to the Greeks and showed that ONE of these meanings,
REASON, evolved through Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and on and on until the
present day where it has become the default basis of WESTERN reality, SOM.
The whole point of his books IMHO were to denounce that this way was THE
ONE, THE ONLY, OR THE BEST WAY the intellect could, should, or DID >
operate for all of humankind over all of history.
Do we agree yet?
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/
