[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[John Carl]

Dan,

> John:  Ah Dan, you and your "fruitless to continue" all the time.  What
> > kinda fruit are you not finding anyway?
>
> Dan:
>
> There you go again, being goofy. And yet you asure me over and over
> again that you're serious. Come on, John. Is it too much to ask for an
> intelligent discussion? That's all I am saying. Why the nonsense?
>
>
John:  Now I am honestly befuddled, Dan.  It appears to me that you are the
one being nonsensical.  What could be more clear than asking you the reason
for your repeated aspersions?  You use the term, "fruitless to continue" and
of course that raises the question in my mind, "what fruit?".  What are you
seeking?  What outcome do you desire that you are not finding in our
dialogue, dan?  I could say it differently, I suppose, but is that really at
the heart of your charge of goofiness?

Anyway, my style is my style.  Asking a guy to change his style is a bit
like asking him to be more handsome than he is.  I can only write and
express what occurs to me to write and express.  Intelligent discussion
takes two, ya know.




> John:
> Also, it only seems fair to me
> > that if we allow the MoQ to change the definition of intellect, then we
> > oughta look outside of SOM definitions of language too.  Otherwise we're
> > picking and choosing, willy nilly, to satisfy our own views.
>
> Dan:
>
> The MOQ doesn't change the definition of intellect. I think Bo is
> behind that notion.
>
>
John:  Wrong.  The dictionary definition of intellect is exactly what
Phaedrus railed against in himself and overcame with the MoQ.  Unfeeling,
without emotion, cold and calculating.  The MoQ means more than that by
"intellectual level".  It means "expanded rationality".  This has been
explained to me by others, and is necessary in order to keep the whole
system from falling off the cliff that Bo describes.

Anyway, the point was, you if want to make the dictionary the authority on
"language", you're in for a tough slog, as Ian recently pointed out.  My
first primer on this understanding was a wise guy named SI Hayakawa.  A
fellow Californian who pointed out to me early on that dictionaries get
their definitions from writers, not the other way around.



> >Dan:
> >> How does the MOQ expand on intellect?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > By including the heart WITH the head.  By enfolding romantic mentation
> into
> > the classic equation.  The dictionary definition of intellect is "reason
> > without feeling"  The MoQ expansion pack is "reason with feeling".
>
> Dan:
> Disagree. If you have read LILA, perhaps you noticed that the
> characters each represented a level... Lila the biologicial, Rigel the
> social, and Phaedrus the intellectual. Notice how cold and impersonal
> Phaedrus is... that is the intellect... cold and impersonal. RMP
> clearly states that the romantic/classical split was a mistake and
> substituted the Dynamic/static split with the MOQ.
>
>
John:

"IF" I had read Lila Dan?  Well if you had read any of my postings, you
wouldn't need that pejorative "if".  And I disagree that Lila was only
biological.  Her relationship with Rigel had gone on for years and years
before the captain found her.  Every person everywhere is a mixture of
biological, social, intellectual and inorganic patterns.  Characters in a
story can be portrayed in a one-dimension fashion, but that's not a good
story and I say Lila is a great story.

I also disagree that the romantic/classic split was a mistake.  It's the
basic structure of the human brain, after all, and holds a great deal of
meaning for the intellectual understanding of "intellect".  Which otherwise
wouldn't have a clue as to the nature of its own self.

Which is, admittedly, a more widespread problem than I first realized.

John