Bo, On 3/26/10 3:33 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Your ongoing refusal to acknowledge that "intellect" and "intellectual" >> are two distinct words with distinct meanings is the source of your >> ongoing (purposefull?) confusion. > > Me refusing to acknowledge the difference between intelligence and > intellect? It's outrageous. Who has hammered on the danger of the > "intellect-intelligence confusion" if not this guy? It is indeed outrageous that I didn't say: Your ongoing refusal to acknowledge that "intellect" and "intellectual" [and intelligence] are [three] distinct words with distinct meanings is the source of your ongoing (purposeful?) confusion. > I didn't think you would fall this deep Dave. I didn't fall, I've always been down here rooted in manure strewn reality. I have always started with the most generally accepted dictionary definitions from Merriam Webster. The most generally accepted source for American English which is Pirsig's native language. (You have forever refused to accept these.) in·tel·lect 1 a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will in·tel·li·gence 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations Intellect (which as far as we know is exclusively a human quality) is limited by definition to "the power of knowing". Intelligence, on the other hand, is not limited exclusively to humans or to just the "power of knowing." You have previously agreed that animals have intelligence. So intellect is a human quality that evolved, emerged, and transcends animal intelligence. You would like to limited intellect, this "power of knowing", to "rationality" and further to solely the subject and object distinction. You keep pointing to the ZaMM diagram that shows a box labeled "Quality" (undefined) split below into two boxes labeled Classic Knowledge and Romantic Knowledge. You mistakenly transfer the Classic box (with its subject object sub-boxes) directly to the MoQ equating it to the static intellectual level. Wrong! If the intellect is "the power of knowing" and we have in ZaMM "Classic Knowledge" and "Romantic Knowledge", isn't it reasonable to conclude that both of these types of "knowings" would be included in the MoQ intellectual (knowing) level. In fact it is one of the major insights that RMP had. Intellect is not solely a manipulator of subjects and objects but the highest, best, tool we have to order, symbolize, and yes manufacture abstract patterns quality. At least that is what some of us think. Dave 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/md/archives.html
