OK, so another re-start. [main] I want to talk about the intellectual level (in the title); such as working definitions of intellect and intellectual quality; and in particular what MoQ adds to intellect - a question I've expressed economically as "What distinguishes MoQ-enlightened-intellect from GOF-SOMist-intellect?" [/main]
[rhetorical question only] Anyone any doubt as to the question / topic ? [/] [rhetorical answer only] Maybe it's tempting to answer "quality" or "DQ". OK, true, but since these are "undefined" I was hoping maybe some practical working / example answers of what is or isn't included in the distinction. [/] [aside] Yes, I brought in Arlo's suggestion that maybe coherence was the issue, and yes I brought it in in the first mail - because as I suggested in the first line of the first mail, it often appears "post-Bo" that talking about intellect directly is taboo, so I was providing an opening, by saying "OK, let's try starting from Arlo's statement on coherence and see if it helps. After a couple of offline exchanges, I continues with coherence in focus, shifting to questions of what constitutes / defines coherence, even though I'm not a big fan of "objective definitions" beyond the working context. The main question / topic is not changed by any of this - these simply reflect possible avenues to approach the main topic / question. [/aside] Ian On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> wrote: > Weird Arlo, > > So even as I restate my explicit question ... > > "As working definitions what distinguishes the MoQish intellect > from the SOMist ? (And vice-versa)." > > (You not only meta-debate the history how we came to be talking about > coherence, you pursue the "why definition" debate further, despite me > elaborating how this was not a big deal for me, after you'd said it > was not about definitions for you either. I'm not denying any of this, > anywhere, just summarising whilst trying to focus. I'm going to have > to start tagging my mails with [main], [meta] and [aside].) > > Ian > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:03 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> > wrote: >> [Ian] >> I wanted to talk about the intellectual level, you switched us to >> coherence... >> >> [Arlo] >> ?? This entire topic was generated by 'coherence'. Our off-line posts were >> about 'coherence'. Even as you brought it back on-line, you asked: >> >> [Ian previously] >> Ian adds, would anyone like to continue, or join that up with the topics of >> intellectual coherence as intellectual patterns - with or without working >> definitions of coherence and intellect, which as Arlo already noted may be >> ultimately unavoidable for some patterns? >> >> [Arlo] >> And now I'm 'switching us' to coherence? Ian, my advice to you is to really >> articulate exactly what you mean and what you want. >> >> [Ian] >> As working definitions (*) what distinguishes the MoQish intellect from the >> SOMist ? (And vice-versa). >> >> [Arlo] >> As I said earlier, "SOMist" refers to a view that holds subjects and objects >> as primary. So, what distinguishes 'SOMist intellect' from 'MOQish >> intellect' is the in the former there are pre-experiential 'objects' and in >> the latter there are patterns of value that derive from the experiential >> moment. This relates to Paul's context one. Coming into 'MOQish intellect' >> from this epistemological position, we are able to 'ontologically' consider >> intellectual patterns to be "pragmatic high quality explanations of how the >> world operates in accordance with the assumption that values are the >> ubiquitous, empirical element of an evolving universe." >> >> If you're able to read 'working' into that, fine, as long as the rest of the >> meaning is not lost. >> >> [Ian] >> ...so the only reason for a definition is to "distinguish" terms in the >> context of a current conversation ... >> >> [Arlo] >> Disagree. The purpose of 'definition' is to move us towards 'high quality >> explanations'. Sure, part of this is communication, but another part is >> evaluative. Its not just that I am trying to communicate with you, I'm >> making evaluations. I can tell you that I 'define' Quality as 'the absence >> of Quality', and you'll know what I 'mean' when I use that term, but >> importantly this definition allows for my ideas to be evaluated. >> >> 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
