[MD] Another parallel

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Marsha 

On 16 July you  wrote:

after I had said:
> >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"

Marsha:
> 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?

Yes, that's it, but intelligence has been mixed in and it has come to 
mean "mental activity" in general. Thus when a dog "thinks" (by 
images) about chasing cats it's at the intellectual level.   

> 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?

Yes, SOM is the objective, detached, attitude. If it is "formal style of 
thinking" meaning by rules and strict procedures I don't know? It's an 
attitude..          

-----------------------------------------------

>From your next message

Marsha expands:
> And a proper metaphysics (as in the term SOM) because there is an
> acknowledged and formalized attempt to strip away personal emotions,
> biases, prejudices and preferences; yet in doing so both the
> objective and the subjective are acknowledged as existents.

SOM (as described in ZAMM) was originally the objective attitude with 
"subjective" its scapegoat, but modern SOM (philosophy) since the 
empiricists developed an idealist school that claims that all is mind, yet 
this is SOM's legitimate child and when it comes to  "emotions, biases, 
prejudice and preferences"  I'd think idealism condemns it as much as 
the materialists . They uphold the S/O dualism only in a reversed 
order. As you say "...both the objective and the subjective are 
acknowledged as existents". I can only repeat that the S/O-generated 
quandary of which - mind or matter -  is dominant has gone on since 
the Greeks and will not stop until the MOQ is "academy"..     

Bodvar