[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[david buchanan]

skutvik said to dmb:
My jaw hang slack from asking and pointed to "What does the term 'intellect' mean" issue. My dictionary says "the power of mind to distinguish between reason and emotion". That reason = objectivity while emotion = subjectivity  is plain, hence INTELLECT = (the value of distinguishing between)  S and O.


dmb says:

The dictionary is using a common sense distinction between feelings and rational thought but the difference between subjective emotions and rational objectivity is not the same thing as SOM. Both would be considered mental, after all. By contrast, SOM is the view that there are two kinds of reality, two kinds of substance. Objectivity is a way of thinking, but objects are the other kind of stuff. They're physical, not mental. See, SOM is a position about the structure of reality but the difference between emotions and the skilled use of abstractions is not. In terms of SOM, emotions and thoughts are BOTH subjective. (Although these days a SOMER is also likely to equate emotions and thoughts with brain states, which means they are understood as objective, physical realities.)
 Bo said:
All dictionaries are somish where things goes on in minds, ergo does it not matter one iota what the definitions are, intellect is something that takes place on the mental plane. And - phew - Pirsig forgets that he has created a metaphysics that rejects SOM's mind and matter and accepts this most obvious somish hook, bait and line.


dmb says:

I think it's fairly obvious that you're fundamentally confused as to the nature of SOM. Also, the Philosophy of Mind is some seriously complicated stuff and so it's really quite ridiculous to rely on a dictionary definition. I don't think Pirsig reverts back to SOM. You see it that way because you've re-defined SOM as something much, much bigger than it actually is. For you, SOM includes any distinction made, any dualism ever conceived. But actually, SOM is just one particular dualism.


I've tried to explain this several times already, by the way, but it never matters. Seems you have a strange definition of all the most important terms and so a correction of one quickly leads to a the next idea, which has also been crucially misconstrued, and then another, and then it has become a huge task. Knowing from experience that this will be a tedious, thankless task with no discernible impact, I'd have to be a fool to do it again.  
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1