[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[John Carl]

We're so close Ham, and yet so far away.

Yes, it all hinges upon individualism.  But individuals are created
communally.

Yes, it all hinges upon Essence.  But Essence is realized Existentially.

John the "I'm more fundamentalist than you"



On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> On 1/17/10, 2:41 PM, David Thomas said something of critical importance:
>
>
>
>  The key point is "individual".
>> Intellects are only present in individuals.
>> The intellectual level emerged out of, is dependent on,
>> and was preceded by social groups. So what I think
>> we have with "intellect" is the same problem we had
>> with "social".  Individual social characteristics, qualities,
>> values go deep into the biological level.  Only when
>> humans evolved sufficient numbers and types of social
>> qualities did the Social Level emerge.
>>
>
> MoQers take note.
> I cannot stress this too much.
>
> Whatever you say about "levels," Awareness, Value, Experience, Intellect,
> and Society all hang on the INDIVIDUAL.  The INDIVIDUAL is the Knower of it
> all.  Such is the structure of existential reality.
>
> Thank you, Dave, for this incisive and illuminating response to Bo.
>
> --Ham
>
>
>
> [Bo before]:
>
>> Whoa yourself Dave, the use of "intellect" as synonymous with
>> "intelligence" is MOQ's very problem. Intelligence is merely (not
>> merely, yet ..) the biological brain computing power, while intellect is
>> the 4th. level (in my now well known opinion). The 4th. level employs
>> intelligence like the 3rd before it. Had Pirsig not used "intellect" in
>> the
>> same breath as intelligence (IQ) all would have been fine.
>>
>
> [Dave]:
>
>> Based on just this one, first, mention of "intellect" I don't believe RMP
>> is
>> using it synonymously with "intelligence" and neither am I. Quite the
>> opposite. But neither am I accepting your definition of intellect. Let me
>> reword RMP again to see if  we can get closer.
>>
>> Human intellect (now) is not much different in intelligence (its basic
>> biological structure rooted in genetics and environmental factors) or its
>> intelligence quotient (the modern attempt to measure the variable "power"
>> of
>> intelligence individual to individual) than it was in ancient man. IMHO
>> modern science in general agrees with this and only argues about just when
>> this occurred historically.
>>
>> How intellect differed between modern man and ancient man is their
>> different
>> "concept(s) of thought". Their "metaphysics" if you will. What they each
>> though was "real". Ghosts of ancestors were "real" to Indians prior to
>> European contact. Just like God is "real" to many people today. As the
>> passionate flaming in the other threads and wars around the world
>> demonstrate.
>>
>
> [Dave before]:
>
>> If we do your: "ambiguous as if there is an intellect of pre-modern
>> man" concern goes away.
>>
>
> [Bo before]:
>
>> Well, I'm still worried about the sloppy use of "intellect". The term
>> indicates (according to my dictionary) the ability to distinguish
>> between reason (objectivity) and emotion (subjectivity) i.e. SOM,
>> while - again - "intelligence" can be all kinds of aptitudes. If this is
>> observed everything falls in place.
>>
>
>  [Dave]
>> Ok, Let's un-slop it.
>> Your dictionary, as I recall, has the word "Oxford" in it. We Americans
>> took
>> up arms to divorce ourselves from those English tyrants. ;-)
>> I have my copy of the Webster Collegiate Dictionary that was give to me as
>> high school graduation present 1962 and a newer one published in 1974 that
>> I
>> bought on in the Montana State campus bookstore when returning to college
>> there after Vietnam. I believe they are more appropriate sources. I have
>> checked them against the Websters Online version and they are nearly
>> identical so I used it for cut and paste convenience.
>>
>> Main Entry: in·tel·lect
>> Pronunciation: \ˈin-tə-ˌlekt\
>> Function: noun
>> Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French,
>> from
>> Latin intellectus, from intellegere to understand — more at intelligent
>> Date: 14th century
>> 1 a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to
>> will : the capacity for knowledge b : the capacity for rational or
>> intelligent thought especially when highly developed
>> 2 : a person with great intellectual powers
>>
>> The first definition say, "the power of knowing" the "capacity for
>> knowledge". (I see the feeling and willing, read on Bo) Only when we get
>> to
>> the second entry does the word "rational" show up. If we turn to the
>> etymology we find Latin- to understand. And if we trace the etymology back
>> we find.
>>
>> Etymology: Latin intelligent-, intelligens, present participle of
>> intelligere, intellegere to understand, from inter- + legere to gather,
>> select — more at legend
>>
>> Etymology: Middle English legende, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin;
>> Anglo-French legende, from Medieval Latin legenda, from Latin, feminine of
>> legendus, gerundive of legere to gather, select, read; akin to Greek
>> legein
>> to gather, say, logos speech, word, reason.
>>
>> So if we trace the roots on intellect back we find: to understand, to
>> gather-select, to gather-select-read, all of which are AKIN TO the Greek:
>> To gather, say, logos speech, word, and finally at the tail end of the
>> list
>> even to the Greeks, REASON is the last and only ONE of the root
>> definitions
>> of INTELLECT.
>>
>> So, as we all know, Pirsig traced, rightly, the "concept of thought" in
>> the
>> Western World to the Greeks and showed that ONE of these meanings,
>> REASON, evolved through Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and on and on until the
>> present day where it has become the default basis of WESTERN reality, SOM.
>>
>> The whole point of his books IMHO were to denounce that this way was THE
>> ONE, THE ONLY, OR THE BEST WAY the intellect could, should, or DID >
>> operate for all of humankind over all of history.
>>
>> Do we agree yet?
>>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>