Hello everyone On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Good morning, Dan. I feel rested and ready, which is good. You have > offered me a lot of response here and I appreciate the effort. And > projecting a bit, I feel you're pain! > > I mean, you only have to deal with me on occasion, imagine what it's like > for me. > > Thanks for bringing out the dictionary. I love dictionaries! Let's go over > this one and find what wonderful stories it tells: > > Intellect: > > 1. the power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, >> > > There's more, of course, but I, like you claim to be, am a simple man. I > say let's just go with that - right out of the box, the numero uno example > of "intellect" in other words is "the power or faculty of the mind by which > one knows or understands." > > Entirely predicated upon a certain metaphysical stance, of self/knower and > something called "understanding". We don't have to define it completely > because after all, we know what it is - the common way we all get around in > the world - we use a subject/object metaphysics all the time.
Dan: Okay. So, my cats (subject) see a mouse (object) running through the grass, catch it, and eat it. Are they using subjeect/object metaphysics, or not? > > > >> as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one >> wills; > > > Yes. There is a part us, a part that really doesn't care. It just thinks. > Intellect designates this aspect of human mentation. I agree completely > with the dictionary. > Intellect - non-feeling, non-willing, intellect. > > > the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring >> knowledge. >> 2. capacity for thinking and acquiring knowledge, esp. of a high or >> complex order; mental capacity. >> 3. a particular mind or intelligence, esp. of a high order. >> 4. a person possessing a great capacity for thought and knowledge. >> 5. minds collectively, as of a number of persons or the persons themselves. >> >> Where does it say anything about subject/object metaphysics? >> > > > You could squeak out of it with number 5, dan. But the rest of them contain > SOM as the fundaments of meaning. You shoulda stayed awake through some of > those philosophy books or discussions but they're all dependent upon the > assumption of a distinct self/other relation. They assume SOM for their > very meanings. Dan: I assune you are clowning around again. If you really want to talk intellect as SOM, write Bo privately. I am done. Please don't waste any more of my time. > > However, the 5th one leaves enough wiggle room for intellect to be > completely dependent upon SOM. For "minds collectively" contain the gamut > of human patterns of thinking, and thus is inclusive enough for our purposes > h0ere - using it as a label for the ultimate and highest aspect of > evolutionary reality - the intellectual level- which gives it enough leeway > to hold both the romantic and classic aspects of what really is, the highest > human reasoning - art that makes sense, and science that isn't ugly. > > > >> >> And for the record, Bo was NOT ostracized or rebuked for a dozen years >> or more. But for Christ's sake, when is enough enough? We couldn't >> hold a proper discussion without Bo barging in, claiming what idiots >> we all were for not seeing the intellect as SOM. Go back and read the >> archives if you don't believe me. And again, he left the discussion of >> his own accord. No one banned him. >> >> > Ok. Admittedly. Bo wasn't making much progress, and I think a reset can be > good for anyone, at the right times. I would assume hopefully that > Bo tried to rejoin, he would be allowed. But whether he does or not, he > pointed out something about the MoQ that is important to discuss. For one > thing, it's not just Bo. As you point out, he did have his supporters. Dan: Yeah, well. Hitler had supporters too. So what? Are you just deliberately trying my patience? What part of I don't want to discuss it don't you understand, John? > > > To see if we have basic > >> > understanding there. Before moving on. >> >> Dan: >> >> The intellectual level is just thinking, plain and simple. You know that, >> John. >> >> > Refer back to the dictionary, dan. Non-feeling, non-willing. > > > I think the term you're looking for rather is "reason" sweet reason, > "knowledge tempered with caring", ed abbey defines it. Dan: I am not looking for anything. You are. > > > > Dan: >> >> Well, David Buchanan and me go way back too. I think we both joined >> the old Lila Squad discussion group around the same time in 1998. I >> value his input highly. So it puzzles me when you disparage him the >> way you do. I suppose it must be something about his style that >> bothers you. >> >> I can think of three main issues I got with dave. There's a bit of a back > story there- It's all in the archives. btw, I'd joined MD back then, dan. > I'd remembered both you and dave vaguely but with good feelings. I dropped > out that time because it was when my daughter drowned and I sorta just > drifted away from everything outside of my family. Dan: My condolences on your loss. Losing a child is the hardest. I seem to remember Steve writing a post or two, and then disappearing. But I don't remember a John Carl. Were you using a different name? And for the record, when I joined the group, it wasn't called the MD. It was called the Lila Squad. > > Issue number one came when I rejoined later, with a real good friend of > mine, Steve Marquis, who lives just down the street from me and I've known > for 37 years... anyway, bitter feelings arose and Steve and I ended up not > speaking for a very long time. It just so happened that dmb's opinion of > me, before he even knew me, had a very bad and far-reaching effect on our > friendship. Dan: You'll have to forgive me, but if a friendship ended on account of what someone wrote on an Internet discussion site, then that friendship wasn't all strong to begin with. I mean, come on. Blaming dmb for that? > > That issue has faded because I'm seeing Steve again and I can't really take > something personal when dave didn't even know me. > hey, he didn't really know me. He's an asshole to lots of people. Dan: So am I. > > Which I guess is issue #2, and issue #3 is that dmb has desired my exclusion > from this list for a long, long time and made it very clear how little he > likes or respects me. Dan: You seem to have it in your head that Horse kicks people out of the group willy nilly. He doesn't. And he is the moderator, not dmb, not me, not Bo. In the years I have belonged, there have been numerous people banned. But they are abusive to the extreme. Mark Maxwell is a prime example. > > So part of my solution has been to needle him even more. > > Ok, so I'm not real smart sometimes. I admit it. > > But geez, it's just so much fun I can't resist. Dan: Well, if that's how you get your jollies, go for it. Seems a little childish to me, but hey... > > > Getting old is a pain in the ass but what alternative is >> there? >> >> > > I can think of two. Dying and getting younger. Dan: Ok, and who do you know that is growing younger? Come on, John. I asked for an intelligent conversation, not a bunch of crap. > > > > >> > However, one can only go so far down that path, as an individual. In >> order >> > for there to be meaning, congruence and harmony, there must be >> relationship >> > balanced in otherness. >> >> Dan: >> >> It is not just something inside of me. It is inside us all. There is >> only consciousness. >> >> > Right. Hmmm... "relationship balanced in perception of otherness" is > consciousness. Works for me. > > I always appreciate these nifty and usable metaphysical formulations. > > >> >> Dan: >> >> As I said, I find it helpful to remind myself that there are many here >> who rarely contribute yet read all the posts. I don't know the actual >> numbers but i would guess at any time there are 10 to 1 when it comes >> to lurkers vs. actual contributors. I lurk for long periods of time >> myself, sometimes for years. >> >> > > Lurkers... shivers... > > >> Dan: >> There are very few places where a person can find a half-way >> intelligent conversation and this is one of them. It is basically an >> open forum until someone abuses that privilege. I see Ham worrying >> himself that he will be censored but that will never happen as long as >> he plays by the rules, even loosely... at least historically that has >> been the case. >> >> > I always smile to myself when I see Ham, or Platt for that matter, talk > about being banned. > > >> > I just do. Whether you like me or not, I just do. And ain't nuthin' >> you >> > can do about that. >> >> Dan: >> Well, thank you John. That is gratifying to hear. But as I say, I am >> no expert nor would I ever pretend to be. Others can claim that >> status; it's okay with me. I just write. That's all. And it pleases me >> when someone finds some value there. >> >> And don't let my harsh words lead to to believe that I don't value our >> interactions. I like you very much and value our friendship. What is >> that old saying... we hurt most those we love... >> >> Thank you >> >> Dan > > > > And thank you, Dan. It's always good to hear so much from an old lurker. Dan: At the risk of getting you wound up again, you need to step back and consider what you are throwing out for the world to see. It is crap. And I haven't the time. Dan > > 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
