[MD] Loneliness

[Ham Priday]

Bo (with reference to John Carl's query) --

On 9/12/09. 2:12 PM, Bo wrote to John:

> There is nothing wrong with MOQ's level design, it's just
> that it rejects the subject/object distinction as existence's
> fundament, ergo there is no mind or matter in the MOQ
> and what we call "intelligence" does not take place in
> mind because all S/Os are gone with the wind.

A couple of questions . . .

If "there is no mind or matter in the MOQ and intelligence does not take 
place in the mind", where does the abstraction of intelligence occur?  Is 
this not a mental process?

John had asked you to distinguish "intellect" from "experience", apart from 
the assumption that humans have intellect whereas animals exhibit 
intelligence "to a lesser or greater extent."  (He also seems to believe 
intellect has a "social origin".)  In your response, you quoted your own 
earlier statement:

> "Patterns objectified for analytical thinking". That sounds like
> an OK definition of intellect.

Well, if objectifying patterns is what the intellect does, then it is part 
of the thinking process usually regarded as "mind or cognitive" activity. 
Similarly, mind is the locus of experience, sensations, and self-awareness. 
If there are no subjects, I assume you consider conscious awarenesss to be 
an electro-chemical phenomenon of the neuro-physical system.  In that case, 
you are postulating "pure objectivism".  Isn't that as fallacious as S/O 
reality or "pure subjectivism" in Pirsig's book?

If possible, I'd appreciate an explanation in epistemological rather than 
evolutionary terms.

Thanks, Bo.

--Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> John
>
> 12 Sep you wrote:
>
>> Intelligence and Intellect.  Which is the level and which is the
>> aspect?
>
> Help me untangle the Gordic "intellect-intelligence" knot (in the
> American English language) where it seems to have undergone some
> symbiosis. Intellect was never meant to be identical to intelligence.
> Animals are regarded intelligent to lesser or greater extent but never
> intellectual - not even the smartest chimps or dolphins. How could
> Pirsig at first say that the intellectual level was "just thinking" - and 
> a
> lot of participants uphold this fallacy - all the time it's obvious that 
> it's
> RATIONAL thinking, i.e. the ability to look objectively on things and
> shun everything subjective. That this is SOM  (The Church of
> Reason")  and thus the 4th.level is just as plain. That LILA rails
> against the C of R in its science form and shows how often
> subjective-personal motifs interfere is another thing, that's to show
> intellect's social origin.
>
> Me earlier:
>> > "Patterns objectified for analytical thinking". That sounds like an
>> > OK definition of intellect.
>
> John:
>> Yes.  I agree that it does sound like an ok defintion.  And since
>> objectification is SOM, it makes perfect sense that SOM=Intellect.
>> In that regard then, the 4th level is Mind, not "Intellect".
>
> Are you bent on driving me mad? ;-) There is nothing wrong with
> MOQ's level design, it's just that it rejects the subject/object
> distinction as existence's fundament, ergo there is no mind or matter
> in the MOQ and  what we call "intelligence" does not take place in
> mind because all S/Os are gone with the wind. The ability to
> manipulate experience (memory) simply emerged with biology's
> increasing neural complexity and with Homo Sapiens' huge brain it
> grew enormously. OK, this - at first limited - prowess was (still is)
> used by the biological level for its purpose, then adapted by the social
> level for its purpose and finally by intellect to promote its S/O value.
> And at this level the S/O's flourish.
>
> Bodvar