Chris, I agree that going to the roots are lousy ways to approach
contemporary meaning. But, we too often give the image that words are do
precise when any reputable would tell us otherwise. That, however, is the
least of this issue. Let me repeat, I haven't seen a real distinction
made between an intelligence on one hand and a skill or talent on the
other. Maybe, in my layman's terms, some are confusing an inner function
with an outward material manifestation of that function. Not all things,
probably most things, are as easily defined and therefore subject to
observation, definition, and evaluation as we may think. Now, I am not
the best student of language, but I think we too often may be putting too
much faith in words and think they are far stronger and precise than they
are. "Intelligence" is a condition of existence, however uncomfortable
it may be to acknowledge, that is immediately distorted when hemmed in by
words, most of which, Socrates might have said, have a kind of read-into
"oh, you know what I mean" fly-paper quality to which anything can be
stuck. And to make the attempt to create this unnatural condition of
imposed precision may be to create what Huck Finn call "truth with some
stretchers."
Second, where's the faultiness (sp?) in the research done by
Gardiner and Goleman, et al?
Some of this reminds me of what someone said, that was we perceive
as truths is a reflection of our acceptances.
Make it a good day.
--Louis--
Louis Schmier www.therandomthoughts.com
Department of History www.halcyon.com/arborhts/louis.html
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /~\ /\ /\
(229-333-5947) /^\ / \ / /~ \ /~\__/\
/ \__/ \/ / /\ /~ \
/\/\-/ /^\___\______\_______/__/_______/^\
-_~ / "If you want to climb mountains, \ /^\
_ _ / don't practice on mole hills" -\____
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
