On Sep 5, 2010, at 9:16 PM, John Carl wrote: > Hi Marsha, thanks for the chance to pointificate. > > On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 1:07 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 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. > > > > I use the term differently, myself. For me, intelligence is the cleavage > between inorganic and organic, and intellect is the cleavage between social > and the fourth level. Intellect is the kindergarten of the fourth level. > This is important to my understanding because it ties in realistically with > the levels. What is life but that which exhibits intelligence? Even an > amoeba is smart enough to come in out of the acid, as opposed to lumps of > matter which just lay there and take dissolution. That's what I term > "intelligence". > > But when objects are conceptualized, we enter the realm of intellect and > reifying these conceptualizations I'd call SOM, the kindergarten of > intellectualism and the position "no serious thinker holds for long."
Greetings John, When a physicists state that a photon is 'real', what do you think they mean? Or when someone states a gravity is 'real'. what do they mean? I've even heard a physicist state that particle spin in not just a mathematical equation, but is something 'real'. I believe this - photon, gravity, particle spin - is suppose to represent something having independent existence in an external world. But what has happened is a conceptual construct has been analyzed into real object. If by "no serious thinker" you mean you and I, well then, okay... Marsha > > But of course, all this is my own private interpretation. I stick to it > only til I find something better. > > > Intellectual patterns offer the most freedom and that is a good thing, but >> intellectually patterns harbor a big flaw: they do not understand Quality. >> >> > > Right. To perceive Quality requires consciousness. I think it makes sense > to define consciousness as "that which percieves Quality" and recognize it > as a continuum extending mysteriously. I don't concieve consciousness as a > pattern, that sounds reductionistic. I see consciousness as that which > perceives patterns, in a creative way. > > Thanks marsha, > > 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/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
