Ham 'n Marsha, All. 31 Mar.
I had said to John > > > In a sense I agree. Philosophy is identical to intellect both as a > > > term and as the Q-level, it's a search for objective truth in > > > contrast to subjective nonsense. However it's nothing wrong with > > > the term "intellect", it really means the objective attitude. [Marsha responds]: > > Yes, I like this way of interpreting "intellect" as the 'objective > > attitude.' It works very well to distinguish it from "thinking." Ham: > Maybe I'm nit-picking, but as one who considers "levels" an > intellectual construct, I think this interpretation is not only wrong > but epistemologically misleading. > An "attitude" is an emotional state or stance taken toward what is > usually a social position. You really are nit-picking. hair-splitting, angels-counting ... and what there are of "giving philosophy a bad name" An objective attitude, approach, stance are not emotions, but the opposite: a distanced, detached state to which emotion is anathema. > For example, one can have a negative attitude toward the liberal > ideology, hip-hop music, or capital punishment. One may be predjudiced > or biased, of course, which is an 'attitudinal' posture. But it would > be an anomaly if someone had a specific "attitude" toward the Theory of > Relativity, Evolution, cause-and-effect, or the square root of 2. > These are intellectual precepts that we either know or are ignorant of, > but they don't normally evoke the emotions, nor does the intellect > itself. These things are results of the said attitude. Science in general weren't conceived until the Greek society was complex enough for DQ to raise it to the intellectual level by the long and winding road that began with the search for eternal principles, i.e. a reality that the went beyond the old social/mythological/god-based one. > What is an "objective attirude"? I don't see Objectivism as an > "attitude" any more than Idealism or 'Qualityism' is an attitude. > Again, these are beliefs, practices, or perspectives of reality that > do not lend themselves to emotional responses. You are idling, but correct in "... not lend themselves to emotional responses", that's the point > The thinking process (intellection) is a non-emotional function that > serves to make sense out of disparate sensory data. It's how we orient > ourselves to a relational, space/time world. Thinking in the SOM sense of "mental wheels turning" is INTELLIGENCE. Intellect in the Quality sense is the said objective approach. > Personal tastes and moral preferences, on the other hand, are valuistic > impressions that do affect our psycho-emotional nature. And we need to > recognize the difference. Yes, inside the 4th. level where values are personal and/or subjective (psycho-emotional) this recognition is crucial. > While we tend to integrate both intellectual knowledge and emotional > awareness in our concept of self-identity, in philosophical dialogue, > where semantic clarity is critical to understanding, we would be > ill-advised to hold to someone's off-the-cuff definition simply because > we like the sound of it. It can create unnecessary confusion later in > the dialectical discourse. A bit complicated this but I guess you say what's objective must be kept clear of what's subjective and again that's what the intellectual S/O distinction is all about. 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/md/archives.html
