[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mark,
mine below too,
Tim

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 22:48:49 -0700, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> said:
> Hi Tim,
> My opinions below.
> 
> [Tim]
> > Just a side point, Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote a whole novel about this
> > concept of an 'intelligent murder'.  That book is "crime and punishment'
> > if anyone cares.
> >
> 
> [Mark]
> Yes, good book, where does such intelligence take that man?

[Tim]
I agree, but my point is that he suffered from want of an intellectual
reason not to go forward with the murder.  How is one to get that
reason?
 
> >
> >
> > [Tim]
> > But the questions that are used to determine it presume that there is
> > some concept: TRUTH.  Truth then is teh judge of intelligence.
> >
> 
> [Mark]
> Truth is an analogy that arises out of Quality.  I don't think the term
> judge is appropriate.

I know you have suggested some homework for me regarding this term
'analogy', I'll get to it.  But let me ask: am I too an analogy?
 
> >
> > [Tim]
> > again, are you telling me that intellect means the ability to grasp
> > reality through problems-solutions?  There is such a real thing as a
> > problem, and such a real thing as a right solution?
> >
> 
> [Mark]
> Sure.  My point is that intelligence is not so easily defined, and
> problem
> solving may be one aspect.  I do not regard the IQ test as having high
> value.

I would say that IQ tests address a very limited set of problems, and
thus may not be of very high value.  But if intelligence is more complex
than problems, solutions, and truth, what else comprises it?

> 
> >
> > [Tim]
> > Yes, as a subject/object, as a "me", there may be certain problems which
> > solutions I can never know, and must rely on common sense...  But I
> > guess what I am really asking: does quality itself have a hard
> > definition for intelligence?  Or a hard definition for Moral, for that
> > matter?  I think Phaerus's point was that, regarding the former, yes, it
> > is quality, and not the intermediate subjects-and-objects, which
> > supplies the definition for intelligence; and then regarding the latter:
> > yes.
> >
> 
> [Mark]
> No hard definitions, just hard trends, which are analogies.  Intelligence
> can be seen as an arising of Quality.  Or to use the vernacular of the
> forum, intelligence is left in the wake of Quality.  Look up the dynamic
> and
> static analogies of Quality.  Think in terms of holism.

I'm fine with intelligence arising of Quality.  And I'm fine with it
being left in the wake of Quality.  I'm even cool with saying that
intelligence is quality, though perhaps not the entirety of quality. 
But this term 'analogy' is bothering me; let me do my homework.  But if
you can help me find the material that would help.

Thanks,
Tim

Oh yea, again: am I an analogy of quality?
 
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> Mark
> 
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service