[MD] Junk Stuff

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Wavedave.
Good to see you back.

8 Aug. you wrote (but then added in another post that all was to be 
ignored so ...?

> But, I want to start where I left off with the "intellect" response to
> P Turner. 

    Another subtler confusion exists between the word, "intellect," 
    that can mean thought about anything and the word, 
    "intellectual," where abstract thought itself is of primary 
    importance. Thus, though it may be assumed that the 
    Egyptians who preceded the Greeks had intellect, it can be 
    doubted that theirs was an intellectual culture.  

> IMHO Pirsig's attempt to separate the word "intellect" from
> "intellectual" by claiming "intellect is thought about anything" is
> both 'not so smart' and 'pretty ridiculous'.  Go to Google and type in
> the phase "What is the intellect?" and you will find about 6,480,000
> results and I challenge anyone to find a reference in recent
> philosophical thought that claims, "intellect" means "thoughts about
> anything" while "intellectual" is "abstract thought itself.."

All this "kludge" stems from confusing intelligence and intellect, Pirsig's 
goof here is monumental and its ramifications has prevented and 
continues to prevent an understanding of the MOQ for so many. No 
wonder Paul Turner disappeared after this reply, but his pupil DMB 
drones on as if the said confusion is of no significance. This irony is 
just as monumental   
 
> Pirsig's claim is verfied way way back. Guess where? Bo and all SOLer's
> will love this. Aristotle on Thinking (Noêsis)

> http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/433/AristotleThinking.pdf 

> Pirsig traces the birth of SOM to Aristotle rails against him and sets
> his goal as: 

    "In any event, he said, no one was really accepted in Chicago 
    until he¹d rubbed someone out. It was time Aristotle got his." 
    (ZaMM 202)  

> Then when pushed by Turner, he claims we, the "subtly confused"
> readers, forgot Aristotle's take on "thinking" with "Passive
> intellect." and "Active intellect." Of course that is the only
> acceptable philosophical account of what the "intellect" really is.
> Boy, RMP sure gave it to Aristotle.
 
You will hopefully return with some more coherent account of this 
issue. Is it to understand that Aristotle himself distinguished between a 
"passive" and an "active" intellect, or that the Egyptians (in the quote) 
can be characterized as  passive - social level - thinkers, while the 
active - intellectual level - thinkers only emerged with the Greeks. If so 
I agree even if I find the intelligence/intellect distinction much simpler 
and more telling. 


Bodvar