dmb had said to John earlier in June:
intellect has this problem and the idea is to fix it. Intellect is not the
problem, it HAS a problem. Instead of rejecting objectivity or subject-object
metaphysics, you're simply rejecting intellect.
John replied:
I assure you I have no intention of rejecting intellect. That's your straw man,
but it doesn't look anything like me. I'm arguing a philosopher on philosophy
forum on the meaning of intellect, for goodness sake! How much more
intellect-oriented can you get?
Ant McWatt comments:
OK, I've been following most (if not all of the posts in this thread) and I can
now see the basic problem in this discussion (as with many so-called
philosophical "disagreements") which is that Dave Buchanan and John Carl are
talking past each other. They are talking about different things with the same
name and is an error observed by Northrop in his "Logic of the Sciences &
Humanities" book from 1948.
Anyway, Dave is using the MOQ definition of "intellect" (i.e. the symbolic
manipulation of symbols that we find in mathematics, the English language etc.)
while John is using the SOM traditional definition of "intellect" as we find in
US conservative radio chat shows etc.
As we see with the Cittamatra Buddhist definition of "mind" (i.e. all
apprehended factors given in immediate experience aka "everything that exists")
and the definition of the latter by many Western philosophers of the 20th
century (i.e. relating to just the MOQ's intellectual and social static
patterns) the latter are using the term "mind" in completely different ways.
---CUT---
John also replied in the same thread:
...And speaking of anti-intellectual, who else has gone by that
sobriquet, by the way? Bergson for sure, and certainly William James
whom he got it from. I don't see how a guy like you Dave, can in all
conscience condemn anyone as anti-intellectual when your own twin heros,
Pirsig and James, united under that very banner.
Ant McWatt comments:
Again, we have further proof to my observation. Bergson and James are
certainly "intellectuals" as defined by the MOQ. Whether or not, they are
"intellectuals" as defined by Rush Limbaugh et al is of no relevance to the
ontological categories provided in the MOQ.
I hope that clarifies things a little here,
Ant
.
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
