[MD] Social Intellectual

[John Carl]

Well I agree with both of you, Ian and dmb, that it's the common definition
of intellect that's a big part of the problem.  Intellect as an integrated
Art/Logic continuum, works perfectly and brings Bo back into the fold.
 Finding his equation of Romantic Intellect as Social, in the archives,
really brought it home to me exactly where Bo is going wrong.



On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:08 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> Ian said to John:
> Intellect only leaves out the aesthetic leading edge IF we adopt some
> limited dumb SOMist idea of what intellect is.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Right. I think that's the main idea behind the root expansion of
> rationality. The idea is to integrate a working concept of Quality, to weave
> it right into any intellectual endeavor. That's why the MOQ encourages
> philosophers to use rhetoric rather than rigorous rules or cool, bloodless
> logic. Which is not to say it's good to be illogical. It's supposed to be
> better than merely logical or correct.
>
> To accuse the intellect itself or rationality itself as the problem is to
> confuse the disease with the patient. Thinking is not a disease. It's not
> the problem. It has a problem. Big difference.
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
>
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>