tim raps 'n' cows, real quick, first, 'hearts and minds' is a term, like 'faithe', for > which I am overcoming an aversion. So, while I agree that it is a fine > term, now, I also think using it 'publicly' could lead to a lot of > confusion. whatevs.
John: As could "intellect". So much confusion, even, it turned Bo's sol dark and confused. But the fact remains, that people do tend to have two perspectives on things, a classical, analytical perspective and a romantic aesthetic perspective. That these perspectives are hardwired into our physical being, ought to tell us something about their very fundamental-ness and give them the proper place. For as I am seeing it now, it's this very differentiation of mentation, which gives rise to the understanding of "intellectual", which otherwise would have no meaning whatsoever, and this epistemological value of differentiation should not be discarded lightly. What seems to be happening, is that this isolated pattern of intellect-that-values-intellect, is a kind of death force at work in society and the individual, which does not want to be impinged upon by touchy-feely emotional crap, and in its austere coldness, wishes to squash all of reality under it's iron heel. And ought to be resisted. I've called it "homotheism" in the past as it puts as it's highest value, sameness and controllability. You see it in any large authoritarian pattern of government. > Intelligence is a balance of the heart, (anything else?), and the mind > (coin flip to determine the order ... the cold and the hot; though I > don't know that that makes it a lukewarm!). I think we should strive for balance in the realization of extremes, rather than the lukewarm middle. It's like, when you know what your extremes are, then you can go the limit in any circumstance, depending on what's called for. But when you just stick with one horn, you're gored. As far as precedence between the two, I give it (along with Dewey and Pirsig) to Art. For in the end, rationality is an art and thus (as you've heard before!) It's art, all the way down baby. :-) > Perhaps I might suggest > that the romantic/classic is within the intellectual level (like SOM). > DQ is still there, not quite comprehensible. Mystical. Spiritual. I > have been using faithe as the verb for: me surviving that, in tact. > > I look at DQ as the unreachable upper limit of the 4th level. That which art strives for, and analogizes endlessly, infinitely interpreting and reinterpreting. As understanding grows, so does Reality! You never exhaust it. > Anyway, this is what the analogy looks like in a picture: > > > >+--+< > > > Tim > -- > > Here's mine, derived from yours. iiiiiiiiiiiiii >-0-0-< i__i Graphical idealism at play! 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
