[MD] Another parallel

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 16 Jul 2009 at 9:59, skutvik at online.no wrote:


Hi Bo, 

You wrote: 

> 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"    

That's the best description of intellect I've seen. Strike out "emotional" in 
the last sentence and you get the difference between the intellectual 
level and the MOQ. 


> This confirms my case of intellect as objectivism, with "subjectivism" 
> its OWN way of condemning all other approaches  

Right.

You concluded:

> 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 . 
 
A distinction well to remember. An intellectual is not necessarily 
intelligent, as Pirsig pointed out in Lila with many examples.

Platt