[MD] Another parallel

[MarshaV]

At 03:59 AM 7/16/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Dave.
>
>13 July.
>
>You had once written:
> > Also, objectivity is the defect in the intellectual level, not the
> > level itself.
>
>I had replied:
> > What the intellectual level is beside objectivity (subjectivity the
> > siamese twin) I would like to know. The 4th level is SOM and I would
> > like some more substance than DMB's constant harping on: "it's wrong
> > because Pirsig says so".
>
>Now you say:
> > Well, it's also wrong because it doesn't make any sense.
>
>On the Norwegian Wikipedia MOQ page "intellect" is an active link (not
>so in the English) and I translate:
>
>     "Intellectual denotes an abstract, rational, objective and
>     reflective attitude. To be intellectual is consequently not about
>     being particularly intelligent, it's more to be understood as a
>     special way of applying one's intelligence. Intellect is
>     contrasted to a more immediate emotional perception"

Greetings Bo,

I just want to clearly understand the above definition.  Both the 
terms 'intellectual' and 'intellect'  (not 'intelligence') denote an 
abstract, rational, objective and reflective attitude.  Is that correct?

You are also saying that this type of acknowledged, formal style of 
thinking is represented by the term SOM and reflects all fourth-level 
patterns.  Yes?


Marsha





>This confirms my case of intellect as objectivism, with "subjectivism"
>its OWN way of condemning all other approaches
>
> > If the 4th level is SOM, then William James, John Dewey, John Stuhr,
> > Sandra Rosenthal, Hegel, Heidegger and a whole host of other
> > philosophers must have been using something other than intellectual
> > patterns when they criticized SOM as a philosophical problem. On what
> > basis can one offer a critique of SOM, if not an intellectual basis?
>
>The said philosophers may well have realized problems with the
>subject/object dualism, but does any of these use the term SOM? I
>doubt it, because in that case they would have understood the
>possibility of a new - none S/O - metaphysics and none of these
>undertook that task. James spoke about the "undifferentiated ...etc"
>that may look like DQ, but then pitted this against mind (concepts)
>which isn't what Phaedrus of ZAMM did, he said SOM (mind/matter)
>was Quality's fallout ... and called it "intellect" .. for your 
>information!
>
> > In order to maintain your weird theory you have to deny intellect to
> > the Western critics of SOM as well as most Eastern intellectuals.
>
>Your problem is the intelligence-intellect confusion. For intellect to
>emerge it had to start with someone "critical" to social value - from
>social premises - but as intellect flourished the social premised lost
>ground, it was "denied" and - again -.  James, Dewey, Stuhr ...etc.
>were surelu critical to the subject/object configuration, but none have
>identified a SOM, much less presented a new metaphysics where
>SOM is a subset - the intellectual as Phaedrus of ZAMM did.
>
>And dear Dave, the MOQ must well "deny intellect" in order for the 4th.
>level to become a MOQ subset, not the other way round. But it does
>not deny INTELLIGENCE and this shows that DQ is part and parcel of
>the MOQ."Where was Quality before the MOQ point to it...etc .
>
>Thus spoke  Bodvar
>
>End of part 1
>
>
>.     .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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/



____________

"Compassion diminishes fright about your own pain and increases inner 
strength." ~His Holiness, the Dalai Lama