On Sep 5, 2010, at 3:46 PM, John Carl wrote:
> Marsha,
>
> As I've said many times, I think the problm is with the label "intellectual
> level" - when intellect is defined as objectivism. I believe that art does
> not manifest on the social, biological or inorganic level, but is a function
> of 4th level advancement and art transcends the mere intellect. Intellect
> is a species of art, not the other way around.
I do not agree. Intelligence is a species of art, but I do not see
intelligence
the same a intellect/intellectual. I understand intelligence as something like:
Intelligence:
The skillful use of whatever patterns (organic, biological, social &
intellectual)
a given situation requires, or possibly to use no pattern, the truly
dynamic,
if nothing else is suitable.
> But it's hard to argue this point in the whole SOL framework, since the
> debate between Bo's position and the MoQ orthodoxy both assume that
> "intellectual" is at the top o' the heap, evolutionarily speaking.
Intellectual patterns offer the most freedom and that is a good thing, but
intellectually patterns harbor a big flaw: they do not understand Quality.
Marsha
>
> I have such issues with this view, that perhaps I might offer the words of
> someone else besides myself to butress what I think the issue is:
>
> Pardon me for repeating, but I think it bears repeating.
>
> "Meanwhile let us lay aside, once for all, the petty human Philistinism that
> talks of the evolution of humanity out of so-called dead nature,' as if it
> were necessarily a vast progress from 'lower' to 'higher,' or from the
> meaningless to the world full of meaning. What value human life may get we
> in a measure know. But we certainly do not know that the nature-experience
> whose inner sense is not now communicated to us is in the least lower or
> less full of meaning. Our human evolution is, as it were, simply the
> differentiation of one nature-dialect, whereby a group of finite beings now
> communicate together. We have no right to call the other tongues with which
> nature speaks, barbarous, because, in our evolutionary isolation from the
> rest of nature, we have forgotten what they mean."
>
>
> John, trying to save the Moq from petty human Philistinism
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 10:53 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>>
>> Thanks to dmb I have slightly revised my definition:
>>
>> Intellectual Static Patterns of Value are reified concepts and the rules
>> for their rational analysis and manipulation. Intellectual patterns
>> process
>> from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries
>> that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or as an “object of
>> analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM),
>> where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge,
>> which is free from the taint of any subjectivity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>> ___
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
> 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
___
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
