[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[John Carl]

tim raps 'n' cows,

real quick, first, 'hearts and minds' is a term, like 'faithe', for
> which I am overcoming an aversion.  So, while I agree that it is a fine
> term, now, I also think using it 'publicly' could lead to a lot of
> confusion.  whatevs.


John:

As could "intellect".  So much confusion, even,  it turned Bo's sol  dark
and confused.  But the fact remains, that people do tend to have two
perspectives on things, a classical, analytical perspective and a romantic
aesthetic perspective.  That these perspectives are hardwired into our
physical being, ought to tell us something about their very fundamental-ness
and give them the proper place.  For as I am seeing it now, it's this very
differentiation of mentation, which gives rise to the understanding of
"intellectual", which otherwise would have no meaning whatsoever, and this
epistemological value of differentiation should not be discarded lightly.

What seems to be happening, is that this isolated pattern of
intellect-that-values-intellect, is a kind of death force at work in society
and the individual, which does not want to be impinged upon by touchy-feely
emotional crap, and in its austere coldness, wishes to squash all of reality
under it's iron heel.  And ought to be resisted.  I've called it
"homotheism" in the past as it puts as it's highest value, sameness and
controllability.  You see it in any large authoritarian pattern of
government.



> Intelligence is a balance of the heart, (anything else?), and the mind
> (coin flip to determine the order ... the cold and the hot; though I
> don't know that that makes it a lukewarm!).



I think we should strive for balance in the realization of extremes, rather
than the lukewarm middle.  It's like, when you know what your extremes are,
then you can go the limit in any circumstance, depending on what's called
for.  But when you just stick with one horn, you're gored.

As far as precedence between the two, I give it (along with Dewey and
Pirsig) to Art.  For in the end,  rationality is an art and thus (as you've
heard before!) It's art, all the way down baby.  :-)




>  Perhaps I might suggest
> that the romantic/classic is within the intellectual level (like SOM).
> DQ is still there, not quite comprehensible. Mystical. Spiritual.  I
> have been using faithe as the verb for: me surviving that, in tact.
>
>
I look at DQ as the unreachable upper limit of the 4th level.  That which
art strives for, and analogizes endlessly, infinitely interpreting and
reinterpreting.  As understanding grows, so does Reality!  You never exhaust
it.



> Anyway, this is what the analogy looks like in a picture:
>
>
>           >+--+<
>
>
> Tim
> --
>
>

Here's mine, derived from yours.

iiiiiiiiiiiiii
>-0-0-<
   i__i


Graphical idealism at play!

John