[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[David Thomas]

Bo,

On 3/26/10 3:33 AM, "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

>> Your ongoing refusal to acknowledge that "intellect" and "intellectual"
>> are two distinct words with distinct meanings is the source of your
>> ongoing (purposefull?) confusion.
> 
> Me refusing to acknowledge the difference between intelligence and
> intellect? It's outrageous. Who has hammered on the danger of the
> "intellect-intelligence confusion" if not this guy?

It is indeed outrageous that I didn't say:

Your ongoing refusal to acknowledge that "intellect" and "intellectual" [and
intelligence] are [three] distinct words with distinct meanings is the
source of your ongoing (purposeful?) confusion.

> I didn't think you would fall this deep Dave.

I didn't fall, I've always been down here rooted in manure strewn reality.
I have always started with the most generally accepted dictionary
definitions from Merriam Webster. The most generally accepted source for
American English which is Pirsig's native language. (You have forever
refused to accept these.)

in·tel·lect 
1 a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to
will 

in·tel·li·gence 
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying
situations

Intellect (which as far as we know is exclusively a human quality) is
limited by definition to "the power of knowing".  Intelligence, on the other
hand, is not limited exclusively to humans or to just the "power of
knowing." You have previously agreed that animals have intelligence. So
intellect is a human quality that evolved, emerged, and transcends animal
intelligence.

 You would like to limited intellect, this "power of knowing", to
"rationality" and further to solely the subject and object distinction. You
keep pointing to the ZaMM diagram that shows a box labeled "Quality"
(undefined) split below into two boxes labeled Classic Knowledge and
Romantic Knowledge. You mistakenly transfer the Classic box (with its
subject object sub-boxes) directly to the MoQ equating it to the static
intellectual level.  Wrong! If the intellect is "the power of knowing" and
we have in ZaMM "Classic Knowledge" and "Romantic Knowledge", isn't it
reasonable to conclude that  both of these types of "knowings" would be
included in the MoQ intellectual (knowing) level.  In fact it is one of the
major insights that RMP had. Intellect is not solely a manipulator of
subjects and objects but the highest, best, tool we have to order,
symbolize, and yes manufacture abstract patterns quality.

At least that is what some of us think.

Dave