Hi Ron, inserted ... On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:52 AM, X Acto <xa...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > > > > Marsha, Ron, Ham, etc ... > > Funnily Ron, I think Marsha is > "talking about the intellectual level" > when she says intellect ... > and highlights its limitations > > Ron: > She highlights its limitaions as THE way the intellectual level is defined. > She is making a case for Bodvars point of view by citing Buddhism > as a refferential support for this point of view. > It's difficult to see how this was missed. > > Ian: > And she does say in her last response to dmb - that the debate is > indeed about the definition of intellect (we are using) ... so to try > to answer that. > > Ron: > I have answered that. In fact Ian you seem to believe that there is indeed a > distinction between > "definition" and "meaning". I side that there is little if no distinction. > Definition is meaning. > So to say that what we are argueing > about is definition not meaning I think you couldn't be farther from it. You > most likely > do not see this, because you really did'nt see my comments as addressing it. > > Ian: > The kind of intellect limited to a level of static patterns is indeed > limited to being about subjects and objects (as Ham and Bo and Marsha > have kept reminding us). > > Ron: > Then you are not getting the reservations and the consequences involved in > this point of view. [IG] This is an ad hominem opinion of me, not an argument. Obviously I believe I do, and am trying to move on from it. I absolutely do get the reservation - that's my point - IF this is your definition of intellect, then there must be a lot more to a good mind than (this kind of) intellect. (This is the point I keep avering where we all actually agree.)
> It's not the way Pirsig elaborates on when he speaks of the expansion of > reason. > > > Ian: > Which is why I have always called this GOF-Intellect - an old > fashioned idea of limited usefulness. > > But intellect (we MOQers all really know and experience in best use of > our human minds) > is / can be / ought to be much more than this. (Again I really don't > care whether we call it intellect or not, but it's more than > GOF-Intellect.) > > Ron: > But thats not what Marsha is proposing Ian. > Curious Ian exactly how, given what > you just stated, is the intellectual level to be/is/can be/ought to be much > more than > static intellectual patterns of reification Marsha states they are,or can > ever be? > That is the arguement Ian, so try to answer that. [IG] Again that is my point. Intellectual patterns of this kind are a reification - by definition. Intellect (good mind behaviors) isn't necessarily. The reason that sounds "illogical" is simply because we are using the same term intellect to refer to quite different mind behaviours. The reifying kind (classic rational) I call GOF-Intellect. The future is MoQ-Intellect ... > > > .. > 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
